Presidential Candidate’s Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward at U.S. Supreme Court pb

Print This Article


by Sharon Rondeau

What was the Framers’ intent when they mandated that no person could serve as president unless he was a “natural born Citizen?”

(Nov. 18, 2012) — The Post & Email recently spoke with Cody Robert Judy, 2012 presidential candidate and newly-declared 2016 presidential candidate, about a new development in his case at the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Judy claims that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S Constitution because he was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents and may not have been born in the United States.  Numerous overseas newspapers, Obama’s own literary agent, and some U.S. journalists have reported that Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya.  In 2007, without explanation, his literary agent changed Obama’s biography to say that he was born in Hawaii.

Judy had begun his eligibility challenge as a plaintiff represented by Atty. Orly Taitz in her case filed in a Georgia administrative court heard in late January.  Soon thereafter, Judge Michael Malihi ruled that Obama was a natural born Citizen based on a birth certificate image which was later declared a forgery.

Judy’s case was one of the three cases filed in Georgia grouped together and asked to respond in one day to respond to Obama’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss because of the imminent primary.  Judy’s was the only case, however, to include the findings of Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  “I felt it was divinely-inspired that Sheriff Joe Arpaio had his first press conference on March 1 to announce his findings, and on March 2, I had to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.  So the night of March 1, I filed my motion to go into the Judicial Branch, including the information from Sheriff Arpaio.  And it’s in the Supreme Court now.  No one has reported that.  It wasn’t me saying that the birth certificate was a forgery; it was someone with years and years of criminal justice experience,” Judy said.

Obama’s name was placed on the Georgia ballot and on every other state ballot for the November 6, 2012 election despite numerous ballot challenges across the country.  He was declared the winner over Mitt Romney that night, much sooner than had been predicted, as the polls in the days leading up to the election had been extremely close.  The Electoral vote was reported as 332-206 despite the earlier polling.

On November 10, Judy received a letter from the U.S. Supreme Court asking for more information in regard to a Petition for Rehearing which he had filed that had been received by the court on November 6, Election Day, at 11:00 a.m.  Judy said that he interprets the response as a “hopeful” sign.  His reply to the court, sent on November 13, was received on November 15.

Judy said that receiving the letter was “very significant” to him, as he began his Petition for Rehearing with the Supreme Court by writing a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on October 6, after which he received no reply.  “I’ve done it lower courts, but I had no idea…I haven’t filed that many cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.,” Judy said. He is acting as his own attorney but has no formal legal training.

Following the Georgia hearing on January 26, Judy’s case and that of several other plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility were combined and then separated.  Judy stated that he felt that his case had been “thrown together” with Welden v. Obama but that it was “completely different.”  As Taitz was prevented from filing an appeal in Georgia because she was not licensed to practice there, Judy and another plaintiff from the original case filed an appeal together.  The case eventually was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Eleventh Circuit, where it was scheduled for conference on September 24.  However, the case was not heard.  Judy then wrote his letter to Roberts, stating that he believed the question of “standing” had mistakenly been applied to him out of confusion with Welden, which had also been appealed to the Supreme Court after the Georgia Supreme Court refused to hear it.  “The U.S. Supreme Court denied me seven times, but finally, when Welden v. Obama got a case number, they gave me one,” Judy explained.

Judy mailed a Motion for Reconsideration to the court on November 1, 2012.  “They then sent a letter to me which explained the court clerk’s perspective, which I was thrilled about,” he said.  “Any time you get a letter from the Supreme Court clerk, it’s important, and I felt they were showing me what I needed to do.”

When The Post & Email asked Judy if he believed the court would review the Petition for Rehearing, he said, “They’ll have to.  I know that they are going to see my response, and I followed the directions exactly.”  He also sent copies to Obama’s attorneys and Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, as he has with previous documents in his challenge.  “The thing that’s going to make it unique is that there are three different grounds that are separate and distinct from the Writ of Certiorari, and that’s one of the qualifications for putting this forward.  They stand by themselves; all three of them have legs.  It’s a totally fascinating legal development,” Judy said.

Regarding the time frame for a response, Judy said that 30 days is standard. “I’m not quite sure if they handle a petition for rehearing differently from a Writ of Certiorari, which is 30 days, or if the case is ripe, the court clerk takes it to one of the judges for a hearing as soon as possible.  Just like a Writ of Certiorari, it will give us a big clue if the court clerk asks Obama’s attorney to respond to it,” he said.

Judy’s challenge is based strictly on the contention that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve and that Judy has therefore been injured as a presidential candidate.  “This is not a recount on the election, and I outlined that in my case.  Through this election contest, my candidacy has been hurt because Obama is running on a different set of rules.  Everyone who voted for Obama has had his vote disenfranchised by voting for an ineligible candidate,” he said.  “It has never been ruled on the merits.  There are also two points of view, which I brought out in the Petition for Rehearing.  On the third point, I mentioned a naturalized citizen who had applied to the Federal Election Commission for funds and the district court in Washington, DC denied his application because of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [Editor's Note:  Sal Mohamed was born in Egypt.]

During the 2012 campaign, Judy ran numerous television commercials to demonstrate that he could compete with Obama, particularly if Obama were to be declared ineligible.  Judy stated that because Mitt Romney conceded, he could not be declared a president-elect if Obama were to be disqualified.  Judy has released his first 2016 commercial and said that much is therefore at stake in regard to his challenge to Obama’s qualifications.  “Obviously, there is money that has gone in, and that is a factor,” he said.  He stated that his 2012 campaign did not finish with any debt.

The Post & Email asked Judy what his goal is in petitioning the Supreme Court for a rehearing, to which he replied, “I would like them to recognize the injustice of running a race with an ineligible candidate.  There are rules provided by the Constitution for the presidential the race, and Obama violated those rules.  Even though the court might not think they can do anything about whether or not Obama is in the White House because that might be up to the Congress, they could say, ‘We can judge the issue of whether or not Cody was treated fairly,’ and they could give me an award for my campaign.  If that happens, the burden would be upon the media to report it.  If that comes to fruition, it would be an even heavier burden for Congress.  That is where Obama would be removed as being under a disability, which is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

We then asked Judy, “Do you think they will define the term ‘natural born Citizen?’”

Cody Robert Judy has run for several public offices and is a candidate for president for 2016

“They know that they have precedent with Minor v. Happersett and that it was manipulated for Congress by Jack Maskell with the Congressional Research Service memos.  I made three videos on that.  Congress will find out that it’s been snookered by the CRS, and the CRS is going to have to be hung out to dry.  Ultimately, I think that they will reconfirm the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ and they will have to conclude that you cannot ignore or deconstruct the Constitution.  The natural born Citizen clause has never been removed by legislation or constitutional amendment.  There have been 20 attempts to change the requirement, and every single one of them has failed.  This is a legislative mandate that has lasted hundreds of years.”

[Editor's Note:  Many writers, scholars and members of Congress equate "native born" to "natural born."]

Judy continued, “The Judicial branch has a constitutional duty to uphold legislation, so instead of the judges feeling as if they’re interfering with elections, when it comes to the Supreme Court, they have a duty to interpret the language of the Constitution and uphold legislative mandates.  The Congress is elected by the people, and this legislative mandate is very, very important.”

The Cody Robert Judy campaign is accepting contributions.  Judy expressed a desire to “inspire Republicans and conservatives” to support his candidacy.  “Mitt Romney is not in the race anymore.  There’s a choice:  Get behind me, or suffer Obama for four more years.  This is a legal, very constitutional way to heal after Obama.  I’m praying that rather than Republicans being bitter, they can give to me.  I got a donation yesterday for $1.00 and I love that.”

Judy believes that the public needs to be educated on the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause. “One of the biggest things that we can do is to put the campaign on the air and educate more and more people.  I can advertise on this particular issue and champion it.  I want to thank everyone for their support and encourage them not to give up on the election.  I just had a comment on my blog: ‘God bless you for doing every single thing that you can do, because if you do every single thing you can do, you will have no regrets.’  So I’d like everyone not to have any regrets and to get behind the ‘Birther’ issue.”

© 2012, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National