Can the first four years of Obama’s presidency be invalidated?

Here’s the lede:

Questions will soon be answered as to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama actually qualified to be on the 2008 Presidential ballot as the trial gets underway for a former Democrat Party official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of submitting illegitimate signatures on petitions that enabled both Obama and Hillary Clinton to qualify for the race in Indiana.

You can read more details here.

I do not know what the evidence and law are, nor do I know how strong either is.  I would like to propose a hypothetical, though:  Suppose tthere is overwhelming evidence that Obama did not qualify to be on the Indiana ballot.  Moreover, says my hypothetical, without properly being on the ballot in Indiana, Obama could not have won the 2008 presidential race.  Whew!  That’s huge.  What does it mean, though, in real terms?

First, if the judge is a Democrat is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that, no matter how compelling the law and evidence, he’ll rule against Obama?  I say no.  I say that there’s less than a snowball’s chance in Hell, if there is such a less-ness.

Second, even if the judge is a Republican, will he have the courage to take the giant step of invalidating the 2008 election?  After all, it’s been one full term plus almost another half year since Obama took the first oath of office.  In that time, Obama put his signature to hundreds of new laws, most notably ObamaCare.  This is the year that ObamaCare, which even its fiercest sponsors now concede is a train wreck, really starts going into effect.  If Obama wasn’t president when he signed the bill, ObamaCare is invalid.  Every first-term executive order was invalid.  Obama’s entire first-term cabinet was invalid, which brings into question the validity of every word and deed coming from them or the agencies and departments under their control.  Obama was not Commander-in-Chief, so his military decisions are invalid.  The draw down in Afghanistan and the withdrawal from Iraq were both done without color of law.

The ramifications of invalidating a presidency four years later are so enormous that I do not think any judge will make that call, even a judge hostile to the Obama administration.  The judge will say that the egg has been scrambled.  Or, to go all Shakespearean, “What’s done cannot be undone.”  Has this been caught and tried in the first months of Obama’s presidency — while, maybe we’d have a President John McCain starting his second term.  But now?  Honestly, no matter how good the case, I don’t see it happening.

What do you think?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Ron19 says

    As I understand it, every law from Congress that does not get a valid presidential veto within ten days, would automatically become a valid law.
     
    Also, since That’s Just Joe Bidden was sworn in as a valid vice president, to fill in if the president was not able to fulfill his official duties, ol’ Uncle Joe is and has been our valid president.  There is nothing to stop him from just re-issuing all of the invalid executive orders on his own signature.

  2. cerumendoc says

    The problem of election irregularities has gotten to be a real problem since organizations like Acorn have nationalized, as the norm, Chicago style voting.  I think it would take a cathartic such as invalidating Obama’s first term to drive that point home.  The real issue to voter fraud is that the small fry are caught and punished; generally, the real prize, the elective office remains in the hands of the politician that benefited from that fraud.  You have to deny the prize to the office holder that benefits.  
     
    How about giving any voter in his given district standing to sue to prevent a politician from taking office unless certain standards of a strict chain of custody over ballots and voter registration can be demonstrated.  It not that hard in this day and age.  Voter rolls can be placed on the internet for example.  A ban on mail-in votes and tighter restrictions on absentee ballots.  Voter ID.
     
    So, much has been place on the ‘right to vote’ to the complete detriment of voting as a responsibility.  Once every four years you’re going to have to get your happy butt over to the polling place, pull out an ID and show some modicum of intelligence in properly reading the ballon and making sure the chads are completely punched out.

  3. says

    Regarding Joe Biden, remind me if we vote for VP independent, or if he’s part of the presidential package on the ballot.  (Sitting here, I honestly can’t remember.)  If they go in as a team, wouldn’t Biden’s role as Veep be equally invalid, because he’s only there as part of the Obama package? 

  4. Spartacus says

    1) It would be a tremendously satisfying moral victory.  Almost certainly no concrete and immediate effect boyond that, but it would at least be that.
     
    2) cerumendoc — Interesting story about chads.  A friend of mine, knowing quite well the very conservative leanings of his parents, happened to see a surplus Florida voting machine on… eBay or somewhere… and bought it as a sort of gag Christmas present.  It came with a supply of ballots.  And so the family amused themselves that Christmas playing with the old Florida voting machine.  But the interesting part?  Dimpled chads.  They tried to give Chad some dimples, but discovered that the weight of the stylus alone would punch straight through any ballot.  The only way to make dimpled chads was to put in a whole stack of ballots at once.  Not that anyone in one of those four Dem counties would do that, of course!

  5. Ron19 says

    Bookworm #2, and cerumendoc #5:
     
    The presidential candidate picks the VP candidate, they both run on the same ballot as a single team, and a single vote per voter is recorded as a vote for the whole team.
     
    However, they are sworn in separately.
     
    On that point, Tom Clancy’s Debt of Honor gives an interesting hypothetical on it.
     
    As for banning mail-in votes, that would dis-enfranchise most military members.  Although their local voting officials manage to do that anyway.
     
    California has an elaborate chain-of-custody process for handling recorded votes on their voting machines, but it only starts after the machines are in place and a voter gets a little slip of paper to validate their otherwise anonymous presence at the machine in the booth.  However, no authentication is needed to get a little slip of paper other than saying that your are so-and-so living at address such-and-such.  See the guy who presented himself as Rohm Emmanuel to get his early or absentee ballot.  Also, the movie clip you had a while back about the guy voting dozens of times back in the thirties or forties, so he could get the payment by the local political party machine.  I think that would still work in California.

  6. says

    Also, I read the articles about the lawsuit carefully and, because the challenge arose after the election, it can’t change the election outcome — but as I said, even if it could, I don’t think any judge would go there.

  7. says

    It’s not up to the judges to save the US. It never was. Even if they tried, nothing would be invalidated. Those who try, will be crucified by the Left, who wields real power in this nation.
     
     

  8. Michael Adams says

    Spartacus, your point about the chads is well taken.  As we used to say in movie theaters, “This is where was came in.”  My wife and I, both devout Dems, had been election judges and clerks, using the punch card voting machines. We were hearing the news on NPR, and it more and more unbelievable. We came to see that the Dems, whom we had always thought were the good guys, were trying very hard to steal the election, with their willing accomplices in the media right in there to help them. After that, of course, we learned to decode the lies, and have voted against the lying party for twelve years and counting.

  9. lee says

    Good gosh, how lazy can you be? Five hundred signatures is NOT that hard to get, even in the reddest of dixtricts, and St. Joe is rather blue. Stand outside a shopping mall for a DAY, and you should get five hundred signatures.
     
    Related to this though, I really don’t think Obama carried Indiana. There was massive voter fraud in Marion and Lake counties–something like the number of registered voters was 105% of the over 18 population of Marion County (Indianapolis) and similar numbers for Lake County (Gary.) If you look at the number of votes the One got in 2008 in Indiana (~28,391), it is MUCH less than the estimated number of fraudalent votes. (And the largest number of votes for him came from these two counties. (According to Wikipedia, he got 241,987 votes in Marion County, and 139,301 votes in Lake.) Now, admittedly, the ACTUAL numbers of votes was less than the number of people registered, but that does not preclude massive fraud in VOTING as well.
     
    When I was in high school, I was selected for Hoosier Girls State. It was a GREAT learning experience. The down side is that only a handful of kids from each school gets to experience it, either Girls State or Boys State. I would love to see EVERY school do something like Girls/Boys State–it is the best way to learn about elections, election laws, and what is involved, and maybe get some people to TAKE THE ELECTION LAWS A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY.
     
    But then we are in the post-patriotic period, where sneering at our country is chic, and the de riguer thing is to undermine our laws.
     
    Sigh…

  10. Mike Devx says

    The legal ramifications are huge.  I know the Constitution is silent on this, and I don’t think we have any precedent set by Supreme Court ruling (yet), do we?  If *any* official within the US government is found to have been ineligible for the office that he or she won:
    - Is their term automatically invalid, or do they have to resign?  What if they refuse to vacate the office, or refuse to resign?
    - What about all of the laws they voted on, or, in the case of a president, signed into law?
     
    And I recall no statute of limitations.  What about prior terms and prior presidents?  What if George W. Bush were found, today, to have been ineligible to run for president?  Jimmy Carter?  Ulysses S. Grant?  I would think that any law that applies to the office of a current president would apply to a former president’s term as well.
     
    What if the evidence of ineligibility were uncovered a day before the election, along with a court challenge and lawsuit, and a Court ruling on it occurred after that (presumably ineligible) won the office?  
     
    Does a felony conviction bar a candidate from running for office?  What if evidence came to light implicating the current President in an unsolved felony crime, and a conviction results?
     
    I have no idea what the legal answers to these questions are; the legal answer for all these legal questions should have been  clarified this before now.  Politically, such an ineligible winning president would be severely hamstrung.  That is especially a deep concern for his role as Commander in Chief during times of national crisis/war.  I see national crisis.
     

  11. lee says

    I don’t see why, if someone is deemed ineligible to have run and they got elected anyhow, the bum should not be thrown out toot-sweet. If a lawyer with a successful practice is found not only to have not passed the bar, but to have never graduated from law school*, they get in big trouble. It’s not like anyone goes, “Well, they did have a great run, with a fair amount of success. Let’s just let it go…” Or perhaps an engineer, with a fake stamp, is signing drawings. Maybe they are even good. But they would get so busted for faking credentials. Here we have someone who is NOT even GOOD!!!
     
    And do we really think Indiana is the ONLY state where this happened?
     
    Also, if the challenge arose AFTER the elections, why can’t it change the election itself?  Let’s say for example that Person X is running for office where they must be a certain age to hold that office, and once elected it is discovered that they: A) Lied about their age; and B) were underage for the office. Would they be allowed to continue to hold office? How is it really different?
     
    * Having just typed that, I realize that there are people who think that experience + passing the bar is better than law school + passing bar, and that law schools are kinda of a waste of time. I’m not familiar with the profession to say one way or another.

  12. Birthday unit says

    No no no no no … as bad as things have been and continue to be … invalidating 2008 might open up 2016 for another Barky candidacy … no no no no no no no!!!!!
     

Leave a Reply