New Gun Laws signed by Constitutionally Unqualified "President"?

[Thin Black Line]

If a Constitutionally Unqualified person is somehow elected "President" of the
United States, would bills passed by Capitol Hill but signed into supposed "law"
by this person actually be real law? Would the enforcement of such a "law"
actually be illegal? Would this have to go the SCOTUS?

Yes, I know this opens a Pandora's Box on many legal issues and not just the
can of worms regarding our 2nd Amendment alone, but that is what we attempt
to deal with here.

Is there any situation similar on the books regarding past situations that have
involved governors, mayors, town councils, etc who were later found to have
run earlier (and won) as an unqualified person?

Thanks.

 

[Kentak]

I'm going to take a wild guess here that your hypothetical refers specifically to the theory, by some, that Barak Obama is somehow not qualified to be president and may win the election.

I would further guess that any and all laws signed would be valid until and unless SCOTUS ruled they were not--after dealing with the non-qualified president issue. If such a president were removed from office, the VP would take over and promptly re-sign any invalidated laws.

I think the chances of anything like the above scenario happening are less than microscopic.

K

 

[Art Eatman]

"I would further guess that any and all laws signed would be valid until and unless SCOTUS ruled they were not--after dealing with the non-qualified president issue."

"after" is a key word, there.

From the standpoint of enforcement of laws or regulations, yes, the laws are valid until SCOTUS has ruled as to the constitutionality. That's the way the system works, regardless of the particular issue.

While in this thread the example is the legal qualification of the person, it is only one example of many which could be used--insofar as how our system works.

 

[X9ballX]

i dont think they should but who knows.

 

[Eightball]

I think a better question would be the whole "what if the president signs the U.N. Small Arms Mandate" thingy that bans firearms in the hands of citizens? On one hand, there's the second amendment, and on the other hand there's the clause in the constitution that says that all treaties signed supersede the laws of the nation.

THERE'S a quandry for you---which one is more important, the Constitution, or the Treaty (which the Constitution says should stick)?

Article VI, Section 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[MGshaggy]

THERE'S a quandry for you---which one is more important, the Constitution, or the Treaty (which the Constitution says should stick

No quandry or difficulty there. The Constitution has supremacy over treaties and federal laws. Moreover, for a treaty to be effective, Congress usually has to pass laws and regulations to implement the material terms of the treaty. If the laws created to implement the terms of a treaty are violatve of the Constitution, they are subject to Constitutional challenge just like any other law (thus leaving the treaty technically in effect, but rendering it unenforceable against US citizens).

 

[benEzra]

"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That's anything in the constitution of any STATE to the contrary. The Founders were very clear in their writings that any treaty contrary to the Federal Constitution would be null and void even if ratified by Congress. That was addressed in the Federalist papers, as I recall.

 

[cbrgator]

I would think that for the laws to be repealed, they themselves would have to be declared unconstitutional. As per the Constitution, it is the job of the executive to enforce laws, and the job of the legislature to make them. Having a constitutionally unqualified president doesn't necessarily detract from a constitutional law legislated by a constitutional Congress. Unless the law itself is in violation, I don't think the presidential issue we have been discussing is relevant.

 

[JBURGII]

As to the 2A and the treaty. Even though the constitiution says the treaty would be legal.. the 2A is a right, not a law? Am I mistaken? Should the bill of rights not be untouchable by any other "law" wether U.S. or U.N.?

 

[cbrgator]

As to the 2A and the treaty. Even though the constitiution says the treaty would be legal.. the 2A is a right, not a law? Am I mistaken? Should the bill of rights not be untouchable by any other "law" wether U.S. or U.N.?

That would give rise to quite the national debate.

 

[Art Eatman]

Do not ruin a legal thread with political comments, and keep it High Road.

Or else...

 

[FourTeeFive]

Can someone please explain to me exactly what a "Constitutionally Unqualified President" is? I've searched the web and found a bunch of people using the term for their own convenience but then never backing it up with a definition.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Someone not born in the U.S.(Exceptions are made for diplomat's kids born while the diplomats were overseas on the job.)

 

[phoglund]

I always wondered about the not born in the USA thing. I understand the exception for the children of diplomats. What about children born to military personnel born overseas? I was born in the USA but my three sisters were all born overseas while my father was stationed in Iran and France.



P.S. No, my sisters don't intend to run.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I imagine military kids would be allowed too. Probably any government employee's kids.(As long as they were overseas for U.S. buisness, not a vacation.)

 

[rtroha]

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there.

 

[cbrgator]

Can someone please explain to me exactly what a "Constitutionally Unqualified President" is? I've searched the web and found a bunch of people using the term for their own convenience but then never backing it up with a definition.

There are 3 provisions set forth in the US Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS.

- You must be 35.
- Be born in the US (with exceptions discussed above regarding military personnel being stationed internationally)
- Have lived in the US for at least 14 years.

(I believe you must be born on an American military base if you're parents are stationed outside of the US to be eligible. McCain was born on a US Naval Base in Panama for example.)

 

[legaleagle_45]

There are 3 provisions set forth in the US Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS.

Actually, there is another provision set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS... the 22nd Amend disqualifies Bill Clinton, for example, from now serving as President...

Picky legaleagle

 

[divemedic]

Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note that "natural born citizen" is not defined here. The question is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.

 

[cbrgator]

Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.

Arnold Schwarzy is a naturalized citizen and he already challenged that. He lost.

Constitution says natural born. Naturalized does not qualify.

 

[ranger335v]

"President" of the United States, would bills passed by Capitol Hill but signed into supposed "law" by this person actually be real law? Would the enforcement of such a "law" actually be illegal? Would this have to go the SCOTUS?"

The office of president is not nearly as powerful as many believe. Laws are passed by congress, period.

While the president typically does sign new bills into law, it's certainly not neccessary. Many laws have been ignored by the sitting president but they become effective anyway after a period of a few days IF the president does not actually VETO them. Vetos to a bill may be over-ridden by a super marjority of congress and then it becomes law over his objections.

 

[Art Eatman]

As usual, some words and phrases are correctly understood only within the context of the usage of an era. That's a common problem in today's world. Witness our own RKBA problem vis-a-vis "regulated".

Art

 

[DMF]

Treaties cannot override the US Constitution, they only have supremacy over STATE laws and STATE Constitutions. Please reread the Supremacy clause again and you will see what the language of that actually says. A UN treaty cannot be used to nullify any portion of the Constitution.

. . . .any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[ilbob]

I am not sure what happens.

The VP who becomes president could certainly resign all the bills. I am not sure if that is meaningful.

My suspicion is that the courts would decide that such a person was indeed president until such time as he left office. I would guess there would be some kind of bill introduced in congress to deal with the situation, and it would quickly pass and be signed into law.

There are all kinds of variants on this theme that are interesting. One is that it does not become apparent until after the election, but before inauguration that such a person was not eligible. Suppose he refused to step down? The 25th amendment does provide that if the president-elect is unqualified the VP-elect becomes president. But just who would enforce it?

Suppose it became apparent after inauguration. How would he be compelled to leave office? His own party certainly would never impeach him. And he has no reason to resign.

One thing is for sure. The USA will be the laughingstock of the world if this happens. And deservedly so.

 

[logical]

Do you really think the other guy's camp hasn't already chased down and ruled out any issue with the man's place of birth?