Stupid Supports ISIS in the Office of President

SCOTUS OPENS UP OBAMA ALIBI

by Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate, ©2016

(Oct. 4, 2016) — The United States Supreme Court Justices have just issued a ruling in the first Conference Hearing since their return from Recess that literally has every lawyer in the Country scratching their heads wondering about the commitment of prohibiting construction precedent to the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court Justices. The Case, a Birther Case entitled Elliott v. Cruz 16-13 received a “Denial” September 26th, 2016 which literally reverses every Birther Case since 2008 against Obama wherein “Standing” was cited or “The Political Question Doctrine” as an Obama alibi.

It seems nearly insane to re-open every Case against Obama’s Ineligibility but this new evidence provides just that Gate because the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s argument that a “Citizen” not in the Presidential Race or Contest actually had “Standing” to challenge Obama or Cruz or any Candidate with questionable Constitutional collateral as far as qualification being born either outside the United States (jus soili) or having a mother or a father who are not United States Citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth received by what is called a parental inheritance or jus sanguinis.

The defense Obama so many times used and counted on was the fact that no one in Government Office who was not running for President, or who had standing could challenge his eligibility and that started with the most famous case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court very early on in the challenging erra of pre-Obama Administration Berg v. Obama which was a Democratic Party Challenge by Philip J Berg who just happened to be a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania where the latest ruling of Elliott v. Cruz was initiated.

Berg v. Obama

Philip Berg, a lawyer acting pro se, filed this action challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States.   The District Court dismissed Berg’s action on the grounds that he lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim.

Elliot v. Cruz

Filed by Carmon Elliott (Objector), a registered Republican who resides and votes in Pennsylvania, asserting that the Candidate is ineligible to hold that office under the United States Constitution

Initially, the Candidate contends that we should not address the question of whether he is a “natural born citizen” because it presents a non-justiciable political question. He contends that this doctrine applies because the question of whether a candidate is eligible to take office as President of the United States is within the purview of the Electoral College or the United States Congress.The political question doctrine is invoked only when the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary abstain from resolving a particular question of constitutional interpretation. In Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the United States Supreme Court addressed this doctrine, stating that:In general, the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it “would gladly avoid.”

Read the rest here.