The EC votes in December. I believe it is the 15th this year. Anyways, the Democrats do not simply get to select a new president at their whim. The electors are bound by law in over half the states to vote for the candidate they pledged. This would prohibit the Democrats from choosing a new president. Because Biden is qualified, he would recieve all the votes pledged to him for the vice presidency. As pursuant to the 20th Amendment, Biden would then become president.

Well, if Obama was removed before the electoral college votes, they are free to vote for who they want as president. It could be Hillary, it could be Biden, or someone else.

In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley did in fact die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.

The real chaos would be if it went to the house of represenatives for some reason.

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place.

Real fun if a state had a split of republican / democrat house members, as each state, not each member get's a vote.

I am aware of that election, but that election occurred before certain state laws required electors to vote for their pledged candidate and the 20th Amendment. Some electorally significant states-MI,CA,and FL-stipulate that an elector must vote for their pledged candidate. Is this the case if a candidate is dead or disqualified? I am uncertain. This would lead to Biden becoming the next president.

I think most presidential candidates pick somebody older and crazier than themselves as a vice president so that people don't go through with plans like this. I think the ONLY reason nobody impeached or attempted to assassinate Bush was because Cheney was much scarier.  Hopefully Biden will get spookier to keep anybody from trying to get rid of Obama.

WHAT OBAMA HAS RELEASED IS NOT THE BIRTH CERTFICATE THEY ARE SEEKING

The lawsuit is for the hand written copy filled out by the delivering doctor at the hospitol where Obama was born. Not for a copy of the live birth record which is what he has released.

According to the law suit, they believe that Obama's mother AFTER giving birth to him in Kenya flew to Hawaii and faslesly registered his birth in Hawaii as an "at home delivery", thus getting a Hawaiin birth certificate. That's why they want the copy the doctor filled out, and Obama is not releasing it.

They are also seeking his mother's travel/immigration records, to see if she arrived in Hawaii FROM Kenya with baby Obama.

 A little excerpt from Wikipedia.

Through birth abroad to one United States citizen

 For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

 One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born; The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;

A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986.

When Obama was born to his 18 year old mother, the law required that 5 of those years be after the age of 14. If he was born in Kenya, he was not born a US citizen. IF she was 19 at the time, he would have been a US citizen.

A registered copy of a birth certificate is all that's needed, it doesn't matter what Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh or the Grand Wizard of the KKK want to see, there's a reason why they aren't judges or court clerks.

By saying that the official copy isn't acceptable you are accusing the Hawaiian government of being in on your theory.  Somebody had to go in and make him a birth certificate.  And the ciurrently conservative Federal Appeals judges and Supreme Court Justices would also be in on it.

He doesn't need to produce any original copy, the State of Hawaii says he was born there.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d285c0ee-1fb9-4b5f-81bd-2d77864bd7c4

By saying that the official copy isn't acceptable you are accusing the Hawaiian government of being in on your theory.  Somebody had to go in and make him a birth certificate.  And the currently conservative Federal Appeals judges and Supreme Court Justices would also be in on it.

Reading comprehension must not be one of your strong points as I never said nor implied that. Might want to brush up on that before law school.

The lawsuit's theory is that Obama's mother LIED when she went to the local clerk's office and claimed Obama was an at home birth and applied for a birth certficate for him stating he was born in Hawaii. No involvement by the Hawaiian government or any judge in this fraud.

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

Which is why Keyes is suing for it. As a (minor) Presedential candadite, he has standing to file the suit and has a tangable interest in it. Obama does not want his  hand written by the delivering doctor original birth certificate to be released, probably because it does not exist. Keye's suspects all he has for an original birth certificate is a form his mother fraudelently filled out claiming an at home birth and turned into the city clerk.

Remember, if Obama was born in Kenya he is not even an American citizen, let alone a natural born American citizen. His mother was not old enough to confer citizenship to him at birth under the law at the time.

Lets me be clear up front, I think Obama *IS* a citizen and meets the constitutional requirements, I'm pretty confident of that actually since I have a hard time buying the conspiracy angle.

With that said I've followed this for a few months now (as I followed just about every story during the campaign) and there are some things that don't add up. The factcheck pictures of the short form birth certificate have EXIF data embedded in them showing that they were taken in mid March (or at least it did back in late August when I personally checked it, not sure what it says now). The problem being is that the article was posted on Aug 21st and they clearly claim in the FC article that they were only "recently" (as of Aug 21st) given access to the certificate for pictures...I have a hard time believing "recently" qualifies as more than 5 months ago so I have some -doubts- about the veracity of both the pictures and the FC article (and honestly FC in general, but that's a much longer story).

Some folks have posited that FC simply had never properly set the date on the camera and I found that to be a highly probable reason for the discrepancy. And I held that view for about a month while folks complained about the issue but FC never updated,modified, or clarified that question (but they did update to clarify other questions) and that ultimately made me doubt their pictures again because it's something easy for them to quickly mention in a blurb if it were true and they could be shown to be lying if it wasn't (thanks to EXIF data from other photos posted). Their reluctance to correct the record is not a slam-dunk but again it is enough to throw their article and the pictures into doubt for me, but given the ease with which the matter could be cleared up by a long-form copy being provided, ....well I'll say I just don't see a reason to rely on photos of the short form presented under questionable circumstances when an authority is readily available if the person it benefits most would allow it.

There is a ton of other info in this case but the long and skinny of it is this. The Obama camp points out that what they have provided is sufficient to get a passport and from what I can tell this is true. The problem is he is applying for something much more important than a passport so that benchmark doesn't fly with me. Any doubt regarding his eligibility that is not *completely* unreasonable should be addressed (and even unreasonable questions that can be easily quashed should be addressed as well) and frankly Obama's 9 months of refusing to provide a document that would be of little effort for him to provide has made this a very reasonable request (ie "what are you afraid of?"). It's too easy for him to quash this for there not to be some reason for him not to, that's not a conspiracy that's just common sense (conspiracy is assuming it means he isn't a citizen).

At the same time you have to be a special kind of paranoid and truly blinded by partisanship to truly put any stock into the conspiracy idea when the evidence put forth is so completely unreliable. In short ***both sides are far too willing to accept suspect information when it suits them***. I have serious doubts about almost every piece of information in this case, which makes the one true authority that much more appealing a prospect and that much more of a requirement to reach any final conclusion in my view.

My current view on this situation is that Obama being a smart politician must have a reason for not wanting to disclose the long form certificate (otherwise he would have killed the issue just to remove any possible distraction, and make no mistake it has distracted), but the odds of him not being a citizen after numerous trips to Kenya and other countries by conservative operatives and none of them being able to turn up any proof makes for a dubious case (to say the least) and ultimately I'm not a fan of conspiracies anyways.

So, the conclusion I keep reaching is that there is some piece of information on the certificate that Obama would find politically embarrassing. It's probably something of moderate to major importance given the fuss that has been made over this, and despite some who want to believe otherwise it has been a big fuss. I've had five completely politically disinterested friends bring it up (some appalled by it some suckered by it), and they each had a different version of the story (a true sign of tabloid level news). An anecdote to be sure, but if I could convey the distinct and discrete nature of these friends and the unprecedented level of political apathy that at least 3 of them have I think I would only just begin to describe how bizarre it was from these people to bring it up (I actually initially looked into it because of the first person who pointed it out to me in early August).

In the end *this is a trash new piece*, but the fact is that there is a constitutional obligation at the heart of it and I think citizens must expect and demand openness and honesty in such matters. My solution is simple and should satisfy everyone: Obama should release the long form certificate and any sensitive information that might embarrass him can be redacted. The goal should be to put the constitutional question to rest without unjustly dragging someone's name through the mud.

Hard-line conservatives won't like that but as best I can tell it is the most reasonable solution to the sordid affair. To be honest my first inclination in such a case was to ignore it completely but I want to point out again the constitutional requirement here makes this a different beast and forces us to take it seriously if for no other reason than out of deference to the constitution itself, and to shame those who have paraded the issue in a ridiculous fashion.

That's my opinion anyways, I'll leave you guys to the debate however, because I think it is foolish to think anything will come of the issue. I've added my 2 cents, take it for what you will.