Tweet
WND Report: Obama Eligibility Case Lives; Supreme Court's Own Precedent Cited; Act Invalid
Birther Report
8/16/2014
Excerpt:
World Net Daily has a pretty good article on the recently filed petition, as reported here, at the United States Supreme Court, related to Obama's Article II ineligibility to be President. If you haven't read the filing, you're missing out. Also, not a real Dr., Dr. CONspiracy fires a shot but misses the mark(s). Read the brilliant Petition!
Bob Unruh writes at WND: OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE LIVES! - Supreme Court's own precedent cited in new demand for resolution
The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases.
Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.
Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury – the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The president’s eligibility is being questioned in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the constitutional experts at William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation.
They are asking the high court to take up the case of Christopher John Rudy, a registered patent attorney who paid to the Patent and Trademark Office “fee increases” totaling $90 under the America Invents Act, “purportedly enacted into law in September 2011 by Congress and the president.”
Rudy sued for a refund “on the ground that the AIA was invalid, having been signed into law by Barack Obama, a person who … was not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and thus, was ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States.”
The courts rejected his claim, insisting they had no authority to look into Obama’s eligibility.
The law firms’ brief explained Rudy’s argument.
“Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a ‘natural born citizen’ has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court – and thus lacked ‘legal’ standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90 because of the new law signed by President Obama.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
The brief also argues that until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.”
“Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90 and a declaration that, unless he is a ‘natural born citizen,’ President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring that the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a ‘political question,’” the attorneys said in their statement.
‘Constitutional eligibility’ ruling already out [...] CONTINUED ....
[...] FULL SCOTUS PETITION [NOT @ WND] ...: http://www.scribd.com/doc/236680266
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/08...ase-lives.html
Birther Report
8/16/2014
Excerpt:
World Net Daily has a pretty good article on the recently filed petition, as reported here, at the United States Supreme Court, related to Obama's Article II ineligibility to be President. If you haven't read the filing, you're missing out. Also, not a real Dr., Dr. CONspiracy fires a shot but misses the mark(s). Read the brilliant Petition!
Bob Unruh writes at WND: OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE LIVES! - Supreme Court's own precedent cited in new demand for resolution
The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases.
Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.
Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury – the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The president’s eligibility is being questioned in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the constitutional experts at William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation.
They are asking the high court to take up the case of Christopher John Rudy, a registered patent attorney who paid to the Patent and Trademark Office “fee increases” totaling $90 under the America Invents Act, “purportedly enacted into law in September 2011 by Congress and the president.”
Rudy sued for a refund “on the ground that the AIA was invalid, having been signed into law by Barack Obama, a person who … was not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and thus, was ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States.”
The courts rejected his claim, insisting they had no authority to look into Obama’s eligibility.
The law firms’ brief explained Rudy’s argument.
“Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a ‘natural born citizen’ has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court – and thus lacked ‘legal’ standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90 because of the new law signed by President Obama.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
The brief also argues that until now, “no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the president.”
“Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90 and a declaration that, unless he is a ‘natural born citizen,’ President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring that the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a ‘political question,’” the attorneys said in their statement.
‘Constitutional eligibility’ ruling already out [...] CONTINUED ....
[...] FULL SCOTUS PETITION [NOT @ WND] ...: http://www.scribd.com/doc/236680266
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/08...ase-lives.html
Comment