Usurper versus De Facto Officer March 17, 2009
Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in De Facto Officer, Usurper.trackback
Some have argued that President Obama is an Usurper, however this is an incorrect legal description, even if President Obama would be found, through a hypothetical process, to be ineligible. Instead of being a Usurper, he would be a de-facto President and his acts and actions would remain valid under our laws.
In other words, even if President Obama were removed as President, the executive orders, the laws signed, etc would all remain legally valid. This also means that any legal orders given by the President would be legally valid.
Source: The American and English encyclopedia of law, edited by John Houston Merrill, Charles Frederic Williams, Thomas Johnson Michie, David Shephard Garland, Published by E. Thompson, 1895
USURPER—(See also De Facto Officers, vol. 5, p. 93).— A mere usurper is one who intrudes himself into an office which is vacant, and ousts the incumbent without any color of title whatever. His acts are void in every respect, and he must, therefore, be distinguished from an officer de facto.[4]
[4] McCraw r. Williams, 33 Gratt. (Va.) 513. In Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. So, it is said that “an officer de facto is one who executes the duties of an officer under some color of right and some pretense of title, either by election or appointment. A mere usurper is one who acts without color of title and whose acts are utterly void.” And see Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 130.
Source: Modern American Law: A Systematic and Comprehensive Commentary on the Fundamental Principles of American Law and Procedure, Accompanied by Leading Illustrative Cases and Legal Forms By Eugene Allen Gilmore, William Charles Wermuth Published by Blackstone institute, 191
DE FACTO OFFICERS.
46. Who are de facto officers.—The subject of disqualifications of officers brings us to that of de facto officers, as one who would otherwise be a de jure officer may as a result of some disqualification become a de facto officer. The disqualification should not be such that the one exercising the duties of the office has no color of title, for in this case he would be a mere intruder, and an intruder is not a de facto officer, although he may by acquiescence become such. As said by the court in the case of State v. Taylor :76 “A mere intruder or usurper is not ordinarily, but may become, an officer de facto in some cases. This can happen only by the continued exercise of the office by him and the acquiescence therein by the public authorities and the public for such length of time as to afford to citizens generally a strong presumption that he had been duly appointed. But when, without color of authority, he simply assumes to act, to exercise authority as an officer, and the public know the fact, or reasonably ought to know that he is a usurper, his acts are absolutely void for all purposes. The mere fact that, apart from his usurpation, his supposed official acts were fair and honest could not impart to them validity and efficiency.”
