OBAMA CONFERENCE OF INELIGIBILITY IN U.S. SUPREME COURT. GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS WHAT-IF QUESTIONS
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2015
(Jun. 11, 2015) — Just seven (7) days now until the United States Supreme Court considers Obama’s Ineligibility in the Office of the President upon the Standard of Qualifications known as ‘natural born Citizen’ – i.e., Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Obama of course fails this Standard and as such is a walking, talking violation of the Constitution and the Standard for the authority that WE THE PEOPLE have demanded for that Office consistently represented on Record of this 5-Year- old Blog. A very Quick Cheers to You as we Celebrate your incredible Response to what has been written here.
Of course with an offense of Ineligibility in the Office of the President comes first the ‘allegation’, then ‘investigation,’ then trial, and then comes the ‘conclusion’. For the U.S. Government it was private corporation Judicial Watch who uncovered the enlightening evidence through a FOIA Request that re-opened the Benghazi Investigations that had been closed by Congress. This is a perfect witness of something the Government should have gotten right the first time but didn’t and its taking the public or private enterprise to get to the truth. The Truth came out with a public Citizen source who actually did the legwork, forcing Congress to re-open its closed case.This is brought up as a very modern and media publicized account for example of a Responsible Citizenry and an Irresponsible Government. The same philosophy applies to the INELIGIBILITY ACCOUNTing of Barack Hussein Obama in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 14-9396 set for a conference of the Court June 18th, 2015. In the example, Cody Robert Judy as a Presidential Candidate, with Standing and damages to his Campaign in 2008 and 2012, directly cited the ineligibility of Obama using the qualifications of the Race for President, outlined by the U.S. Constitution in Art. II. Section I, Clause 5. Congress messed this one up and it’s taken an unelected or public Citizen to bring the action back for Justice. We know it’s not the first time, and it probably won’t be the last. Congress actually hasn’t had ‘standing’ to challenge the issue, either, and therefore at times and circumstances like this relies heavily on the Public and the Courts for Justice. It should be noted I as a Candidate for President do meet the natural born Citizen qualification to be President, as I was born in Idaho Falls, Idaho to Citizen parents.
The Constitution provides the exact language with which a President can be elected and still fail to qualify in Amendment XX. Certification of Congress does not make someone who is ineligible and/or unqualified eligible by the Standards of the Constitution. Of course the Legislative Branch doesn’t even have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Their responsibility is ‘making the law,’ and the Judicial Branch’s responsibility comes into interpreting the law, except under the explicit TRIAL conditions in the U.S. Senate which even then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court heads. Those parameters make a challenge to the Standards of the Office of the President proper in the U.S. Supreme Court brought to them by a Candidate for President, even though unelected, much the same as Judicial Watch ham-stringed the Investigation of Congress with new information that had to be considered in Congress’s oversight.
Of course, in 2008, no one knew who Barack Obama was. There was no long-form birth Certificate for a law enforcement investigation to look at, and until a person actually becomes a party’s nominee, a challenge to his or her ineligibility is considered premature by the Courts. That makes for a waiting game that certainly becomes perilous in the time constraints and expectations of the Judicial Courts unless a Plaintiff happened to get lucky in the lower Courts. Luck has not been favorable upon those decried “Birthers” by the mainstream media while the lower Court Judges who are subjected to elections themselves worry like politicians propped up in front of the boob-tube.
It is only the United States Supreme Court Justices who have been given lifetime tenure. That was given to them by the People in the Constitution as a guardian of our Rights without restraint of pandering to popularity. Burning the United States Flag in protest of corruption within the Government was upheld by the Court as an act of free speech some 26 years ago this month, just as coloring the Prophet of the Islamic Faith is protected under freedom of speech whilst it is in direct conflict with that religions teachings for its congregation. Subjecting a whole population to a religious tenet by force is a tyrannical Theocracy and that is not how the United States of America was at least designed to operate in its defense and respect of more than one, multi or diverse religions. This was extrapolated with Fox New’s Megyn Kelly and a guest of hers May 8th, FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AMERICA UNDER ATTACK and her guest Eugene Volokh.
The principle is not foreign to Christians found in the Bible’s book of Isaiah 29:21 and even in the LDS B.O.M 2nd Nephi 27:32 invoking the Principle of freedom of speech. The designs that a Religion would kill or enslave a population to prison for free speech should be maintained as ‘foreign’ in the United States. Our Criminal Code and Civil Rights are designated protections from being beheaded, and imprisoned. This also requires a vigilant population who is educated/informed of where the lines are drawn from facts to fiction and a Justice System allowed the time to see the matter out in order. Where speedy trials are denied, however, there is also the danger of ‘instant justice’ being seen as a positive incentive for the population as a discouragement and apathy sets in. The circumstances consistently show the wise understanding our Constitution provides.
SECURING THE PROTECTIONS OF THE VOTE
The U.S. Supreme Court Justices are given to make decisions that may not be fully supported by a bullying population when it comes to protecting individual rights as it becomes necessary to secure those for the minorities. The sacred turf of freedom and liberty seen in protecting the ‘individuals vote’ can not be over stated as fundamental to the foundation. The Judy v. Obama 14-9396 Case of course pitches three strikes in this regard declaring Obama ineligible and the votes cast for him made in contempt of honoring every persons right to at least vote for a qualified candidate.
To secure that right, an allegation of fraudulent identity has been brought to the Court for its consideration as well as the allegation of Obama’s failure to qualify as a ‘natural born Citizen’ by not having two Parents who are U.S. Citizens. The doctrine that foreign influence in the history of a person for two generations be kept strictly American is found in Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. One of the misconceptions is seen in the facts that ‘natural born Citizenship’ can be walked into or earned by immigrants who come here legally stay and have children eligible to be President; but also can be walked out of by for instance a natural born Citizen incorporating foreign influence by marriage and moving out of the United States to start a family in a foreign land. The guarantees that the children of mixed foreign affluent parents as well as foreign birth maintain the same rights to the Presidency is a false narrative to the protections upon which that qualification was established in the first place.
It’s not as if America doesn’t offer its immigrants the ability to govern up to the U.S. Senate as “Citizen” is the distinction made for that high office, but the United States holds a reward for those generations who stay and propagate families in America in the reservation of the Office of the President, regardless of race, gender,or religion. Judy v. Obama 14-9396 is a legal action against Obama and his enablers personally as well as those in office legally within the DNC. The action depicts the damages resulting from the fraudulent actions of identity upon myself as a Candidate, but the Court will consider it a fraudulent action upon Voters much more in their considerations than the mere damages to my person.