T-Room

The Best in Alt News

  • Home
  • News Archive
  • Visit the New Website

August 14, 2014

President Obama’s Citizenship Bona Fides — The Controversy Continues

August 14, 2014

by Helen Tansey
The T-Room dot us

Seeking restitution of $90 in injuries and settling the question of Obama’s citizenship bona fides is what Petitioner Christopher John Rudy is asking the Supreme Court to address in Rudy v Lee. The William J. Olson law firm issued the the following press release today detailing their recent filing of a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, on behalf of Mr. Rudy –

Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court

On August 13, 2014, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress — not the courts — to decide.

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 $90.00 because of the new law signed by President Obama.

Also, 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 $90.00 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 what the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a “political question.”

In addition to possessing the standing that prior challengers lacked, Mr. Rudy’s case comes at an opportune time — just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning that an Order of the NLRB was invalid because three members of the board were constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the President of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.

Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a President be a “natural born citizen” is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the President’s sworn oath to “defend, preserve, and protect” the Constitution of the United States.

Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant, but if the law is to apply equally to every person, Presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents “political question.” Indeed, demonstrating that the term “natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance which needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.

Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The Supreme Court is currently in recess returning in September. There is no guarantee SCOTUS will hear this case, so don’t get your hopes up, however, after reading the exceptionally strong arguments put forth in the Olson friend-of-the-court brief (see below), the Court would be hard pressed to simply ignore Rudy’s complaint. After all, they only recently ruled appointments made by Obama to the NRLB to be unconstitutional, he has standing and all he wants is a simple “refund of his $90.00 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.”

From the beginning, when thousands upon thousands of voters were questioning and challenging Mr. Obama’s citizenship status, this very question was asked ad naseum “if he’s not a natural born citizen then how can the legislation he signs be legal?” But no one, then nor now, who has been given the trust to serve the People, has ever provided an unequivocal answer. Instead all that is heard is silence with the only exception being the paid for crazy choir of birther obots.

It is unfathomable that in six years not one governor, not one state attorney general, not one secretary of state, not one representative, not one senator, not one judge has once settled the most basic of questions for the most powerful position in the world – what is the definitive definition of a ‘natural born citizen?’  Sure the People know, we’ve always known, but ask any in authority and they turn into quivering nannies? No offense to nannies intended.

Just my opinion, but if SCOTUS refuses this case, especially after reading the Olson brief, then the People indeed have their answer, that is Mr. Obama’s citizenship status is, unequivocally, something other than natural born.

Rudy v Lee USJF Amicus Brief (2)

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Article II, Herb Titus, natural born citizen, Obama's citizenship bona fides, presidential qualifications, rudy v lee, wm. j. olson law firm

May 3, 2012

ARTICLE II SUPER PAC ENTHUSIASTICALLY ACCEPTS BRET BAIER’S INVITATION TO DEBATE THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL TERM: ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’

www.art2superpac.com

TIME TO GET IT ON!

ARTICLE II SUPER PAC ENTHUSIASTICALLY ACCEPTS BRET BAIER’S INVITATION TO DEBATE THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL TERM: ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’

Fox News reporter and host of Special Report, Bret Baier conceded on his blog today that the constitutional meaning of Natural Born Citizen has lately been a source of continuing controversy given the buzz that Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Bobby Jindal are on the short list of possible VP picks for presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. This is because there are growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize that the Founding Fathers were expressly concerned that our commander-in-chief have no foreign allegiances. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Jindal’s parents were foreign citizens at the time of their birth and the Constitution clearly differentiates citizenship status for both the POTUS and VPOTUS (12th Amendment).

Oddly, Mr. Baier failed to make mention on his blog, how this ongoing controversy relates to Mr. Obama’s own “Natural Born” status; especially given the fact that Obama’s parentage and birthplace have yet to be conclusively proven and verified by any independent legal authority.

Nevertheless, Art2SuperPAC applauds Mr. Baier’s rational, common sense approach to finally address this constitutional crisis once and for all. By doing a full piece on his show with a panel of constitutional scholars, a “fair and balanced” debate will serve an invaluable service to the American people. Fox News is to be applauded for taking the lead and finally allowing the debate that the courts and the media have shamefully avoided for more than three years.

As a preeminent supporter of the Constitution and a leader in the effort to ensure that citizens and elected officials clearly understand Article II and the definitive meaning intended by the Founding Fathers of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” Mr. Baier and Fox news would be woefully remiss if they failed to reach out to Art2SuperPAC to join the debate. Our legal experts and attorneys are eager to explain the true meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Read constitutional scholar Herb Titus’ response to news pundit Baier by clicking HERE

Visit Article II Super PAC to learn the history and correct meaning behind the Founding Father’s insertion of ‘natural born Citizen’ into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Presidential Qualifications by clicking HERE

 

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Article II, article II super pac, Birther, Brett Baier, Brett Baier Fox News, congress commits treason, Fox News, Herb Titus, Herb Titus constitutional scholar, Herb Titus Esq., Jindal ineligible, natural born citizen, natural law, New World Order, Obama ineligible, presidential qualifications, Rubio ineligible, Treason, Vattel, vice presidential qualifications

Tags

9/11 Alex Jones Article II Banksters Barack Obama bernanke China CIA Corbett Report Edward Snowden fascism Federal Reserve fukushima GMO Gold Gold currency Goldman Sachs IMF Iran Israel JP Morgan Keiser Report Max Keiser NATO Netanyahu New World Order NSA Obama Palestine Police state politics President Obama radiation RT Russia Silver Silver currency Syria T-Room the t room US Constitution USD Wall Street wayne madsen Zionism

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

© 2013 Tansey & Associates, LLC | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Site Designed by Owen Design Company