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.
