RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed up in Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency Motion not ruled upon violating Court procedure.

RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed up in Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency Motion not ruled upon violating Court procedure.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/109209314/Letter-to-Justice-John-Roberts-Reconsideration-Standing-Mixed-up-in-Conference-Sept-24th-Emergency-Motion-not-Ruled-upon-violating-Court-Procedure


FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
As Seen on:

Cody Robert Judy
3031 So. Ogden Av. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah, 84401
Ph.801 / Email / codyjudy@hotmail.com
www.codyjudy.us : www.codyjudy.blogspot.com :YouTube: CodyJudy

- - - -
Chief Justice John Roberts – United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Office of the Clerk – Mr. William K. Suter
Washington, DC 20543-0001

RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed up in Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency Motion not ruled upon violating Court procedure.

Dear Chief Justice John Roberts: October 6th ,2012

In the humblest way affordable our Founders and Framers sought justice for all under the law. Your Honor, I humbly appeal to the most basic sense of Justice because, I believe, the standing in my case was mixed up with Weldon v. Obama also a Georgia case. As a Petitioner for relief the question I have: How can “No”, and “Yes”, to the questions of my Writ of Certiorari be considered a balance?

In a Sept.28, 2012 ruling in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia Hassan v. F.E.C;11-2189, by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in principled terms concurred that the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5 had not been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[(pg.16) briefly, the Court notes that Article 5 of the Constitution provides an explicit method to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const., Art. V. Even if a constitutional provision could be implicitly repealed in the same manner as a statute, the implicit repeal of statutes is disfavored and will not be found absent clearly expressed congressional intent. See Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 662 2007); Posadas v. Nat’l City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936) (holding that “[w]here there are two acts upon the same subject, effect should be given to both if possible”). (Pg17). - the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid. See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”); see also Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946) (same); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944) (same). Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to declare that a provision of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional. It is beyond this Court’s authority to do so. “[T]his Court lacks the power to grant the relief sought because the Court, as interpreter and enforcer of the words of the Constitution, is not empowered to strike the document’s text on the basis that it is offensive to itself or is in some way internally (Pg.18) inconsistent.” New v. Pelosi, No. 08-Civ.-9055(AKH), 2008 WL 4755414, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 374 F. App’x 158 (2d Cir. 2010). Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail. ] Pg. 17 Hassan v. F.E.C. District of Columbia 11-2189

On the opposite side of the coin is my case where the Administrative Court ruling, the subsequent Superior Court, and Georgia Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment did in fact over-rule the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5. In these two example cases the affect cannot be given to both.
The two varying opinions are in collision with each other Your Honor. The denial of my Cert by the SCOTUS in fact catapults the latter from the realm of dicta to holding and is being used as such in malicious tread upon me as a sore loser. I am a Democratic Candidate for President.

I don’t believe I am a sore loser Your Honor when I have lost under the laws that govern all, but when I have lost under lawlessness in a contest with specific laws defined as my rights, then indeed it is not only me that is sore but the laws and rights defined as The Supreme Law of the Land that have been trampled in the election contest.
The effect of this case is felt by every registered, and future, voter in the United States of America, thus the magnitude of justice is weighted heavily in affirmation of balancing justice, straightening out the law, and stopping the momentum that seeks to destroy the law, and in such includes the very seat of Justice in which you sit.

There is one more thing Your Honor that I wonder about which came from a comment that the SCOTUS and specifically Your Honor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito were indeed laughing at me: Anonymous Comment made:
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/10/media-gloating-over-obamas-eligibility.html

[ It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.]

[The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and they certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any. That's quite a laugh. ]

My case has a Motion that was never addressed, or put forward, and I respectfully request the attention to it as a matter of integrity toward law that the cost of it demands and a reconsideration of my lost standing if of course there is no merit to the comment in consideration and Your Honor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito are not sore at the Constitution’s demands for a ‘natural born citizen’ for the Office of President.

Sincerely,
Cody Robert Judy/Petitioner Judy v. Obama 12-5276

Can Dual Citizens Run For President - Let's Take A Look

There is a "Responsibility" to be a defensive driver, but not a "right" for a 13 year old to drive or run for President.

If you have a choice of dual citizenship at birth, you don't have a 'right' to run for President.

The very subtle argument to place "responsibility" of the voters in charge of who to elect is used in the following comment and its worth looking at because we all must know that we are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

Anonymous Comment:
[So long as the child is born in the USA, she or he would be eligible. What that means is simply: (1) American citizens have the RIGHT to vote for the US-born child of a dictator, just as they have a right to vote for every US-born citizen. That right has not been taken away. (2) It is the RESPONSIBILITY, of the US voter to vote against that child of a dictator if the voter feels that the child of that dictator will be like the dictator (or, if not, then to vote the other way). NO court has taken away that RESPONSIBILITY, and having responsibilities is a good thing. People who desire to take away the responsibilities of Americans want to treat them like children. That is what conservatives say that liberals want to do, but in this case the conservatives are acting like liberals, desiring to take away a right and a responsibility.]

Now of course we must consider the right of the people to know and understand the Candidate's past. That past has come to be shaped by the Media. We all know Barack Obama's past was never remotely delved into by the mainstream media, and we also know that Obama himself didn't write his own auto- Dreams of my Fathers.

A clear manipulation of the voters information comes clear from who owns and runs the media. Obama's forged long form birth certificate and draft registration by law enforcement investigators (ie Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse) didn't take place until 2011. This was a full 3 years into the 1st term.

The Constitution contains the term "natural born" for a US president. This term was used to prevent anyone with the possibility of having a foreign allegiance from becoming commander-in-chief of US forces, for obvious reasons (super fifth column, anyone?) A person with dual citizenship owes allegiance to both the US and the foreign government. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, which of course for a sitting US President would be disastrous to the US nation.

The term "natural born" is used to mean a singular allegiance to one and only one nation. Dual citizenship contradicts this.

(Note that it is unique that the US president is also the commander-in-chief, which entrusts the office of president with great power, so a concern of allegiance was on the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Senators and Representatives can be naturalized; the President cannot, because of the Commander-In-Chief power.)

All NATURALIZED citizens have to take an oath of ALLEGIANCE, to confirm they only have allegiance to the US and no other country. But this is not enough to fully repudiate possible allegiances to other countries.

So "allegiance" is the key here -- at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, "natural born" was a term carefully chosen to define that allegiance - it means having a singular allegiance that derives from one's having been born of the soil of the nation - in this case, the US nation. This results in a kind of "super-allegiance".
That is what the framers meant, and Constitutional lawyers have always recognized this to be the meaning.

So according to the Constitution, which explicitly and unambiguously uses with the term "natural born" when referring to qualifications for someone to be the US president, no, a US president cannot have dual citizenship. They must have that singular allegiance that can only be derived from having been born of US soil - "born here" to Citizen parents, simply because one can take the foreign parents citizenship at birth, that right always exist.

Loyalty to first generations citizens does not abdicate the "responsibility" to follow the Constitution, as we are a Nation of laws.

Again the Article II,Sect I, Clause 5 itself is the law and abrogates a "Citizen" can run if they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, thus the "natural born citizenship" was given an exemption.

"Citizens" of the 14th Amendment source, dual citizens, and or 'native' citizens - anchor babies were not given that exemption.

This is the Supreme Law of the Land, and there is a method of changing it, but it doesn't exist through the Judicial Branch. It remains in the Legislative Branch.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_president_have_dual_citizenship#ixzz28TQ31D3m

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/

DC Court just Sept 28th,2012 ruled that the 'natural born citizen' clause was not trumped by the 14th or 5th Amendment.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf

Santorum Joins Obama & McCain in Political Presidential Shame

Sen. Santorum Disgraces his Office, his Constituents, and the Constitution
Richard John "Rick" Santorum is an American author, attorney, and Republican Party politician. He served as a United States Senator representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum


Nice work CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)!

"100% Proof Rick Santorum was Born a Dual-Citizen (Italy and USA) and thus Not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, i.e., a person born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA at birth. Rick’s father who was an immigrant from Italy took the oath of allegiance to the USA and formally perfected his naturalized U.S. Citizenship and renounced his Italian Citizenship in 1961 which was 3 yrs after Rick was born in 1958. FOIA Response re Aldo Santorum, father of Rick Santorum"
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/rick-santorum-still-refusing-to-provide-copies-of-naturalization-papers-proving-his-father-was-a-u-s-citizen-when-rick-was-born/


Rick Santorum born 1958 his father's naturalization record made after Rick Santorum's 3rd birthday in 1961- Citizenship application here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108907280/100-Proof-Rick-Santorum-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-Father-naturalized-3-yrs-after-Rick-was-born-FOIA-Response-Re-Aldo-Santorum

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/rick-santorum-still-refusing-to-provide-copies-of-naturalization-papers-proving-his-father-was-a-u-s-citizen-when-rick-was-born/


You know I wish a campaign contributor to him would take him to Court for fraud. Imagine all the dollars, 24 million in Sen Santorum's case that was WASTED on an ineligible candidate. If he wasn't qualified for the office he was running for the solicitation for dollars should be considered an action of fraud in misrepresenting a qualification. We prosecute pretenders of professions all the time.

f you don't think "discrimination"- or adhering to the qualifications, is good when it comes to the office of the President, why not let all the Dictators in the world, have children with American women, and finance their way to the Presidency as an off-shoot of tyranny?

What I don't think you understand was that the 'grace' of the Constitution allowed the example I just gave to actually do that the very next generation.

The consideration was only for the Pres and VP, that much we agree. Hey, Congress was a pretty big olive branch and Sen. Rubio has done great and is an honor to his country. His children could be President if they're born in the U.S.

We both know "Citizens" before the Constitution was adopted was the grandfather clause of not being a'natural born citizen', so why has it failed to change through over 200 years of attempts through the Legislature? That's were it should be changed, not through the Judicial Branch.

If you had read the transcripts to hearings held in Committee's of Congress assigned to this matter, you would see and read that two generations in America brings something more to the character and loyalty of a family, and rushing it to include only 1 generation as you advocate leaves an open door for an anchor baby to be born, and taken to another country and raised, and implanted/financed into the Presidency, just as Barack Obama was.

The question is does a tradition of 2 generations make a difference?

It places distance of a whole generation of leaders, not just our leaders, beyond the reach of influencing, controlling,or manipulating the Presidency.

All the leaders would have died by the time the 2nd generation natural born citizen comes along and "nature" as well as "nurture" has done its best.

Obama bowed to the Saudi Prince very low. Obama used America's military to place into power the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.

The evidence you suggest is needed will without a doubt dawn upon you way to late, and with no available recourse, because the office of the Presidency is a commander-in-chief.

There is already little doubt thousands would still be alive in Egypt and Libya if our Military sequestered by Obama without Congressional approval had not been used at all.

Instead our military was used to implant a theocracy. Such a move would have never been undertaken by a natural born citizen.

What 'vital' U.S. interest was in Libya and Egypt? No, Obama has proven himself not a natural born citizen defending, preserving, and protecting, the U.S. Constitution not only with his identity but with his actions.

And we wait for further proof. Well perhaps his words caught unawares with Putin would be a matter for you to research, something along the lines of, " I will have more latitude to implement after my second term"

Obama himself acknowledges he's only got one more election and in his mind leveling the playing field is a truth he holds self evident that all men are created equal, and so we should level the playing field with every enemy of the the United States. That is a recipe for much more blood shed.

And to think just adhering to our Constitution might have saved so many lives? Indeed, it was wise and sound wisdom that a check be given to the office of President and Vice President, which created the necessity for the grandfather clause for our Founders that expired long before Obama was born.

The action of Sen. Santorum should be considered a violation of oath and he should be removed of any Senatorial remunerations from his previous held office by his colleagues for the disability and shame he has represented to the American People in actively disgracing our Constitution as well as the Republican Party, with the attempted usurpation.

The legislative mandate for 'natural born citizen' has never been over-turned. Mr. Santorum knows this but represented himself as qualified under the Constitution to serve as President if elected.

Rick Santorum a Senator, an attorney,a disgrace knowingly violating the statutes of qualifications for the office of the President held within the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and thus bringing shame to all of America just like Obama.

The Declaration of Candidacy for the Office of the Presidency is a Sworn Statement under oath, which is an official proceeding in the Government State's elections offices.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems an attorney general could use something along the lines in the penal code to improve the conduct of these fake politicians hurting America and disgracing our Constitution.

We all know what is going on is not right. How to prosecute it has become the problem for the people; as politicians submitting false information by sworn affidavits are skating free and collecting contributions under these false qualifications.

These might not apply, but they do make for some interesting considerations.

If the vote of a registered legal voter is made invalid by the deception of the candidate, in affect the vote is made ineligible for the voter for that voter is restricted/coerced from casting a ballot for a qualified candidate, to which the following applies based on 'false information' given by the candidate directly assigned to the qualification of the office for the purpose of voting:

42 U.S.C. §1973gg-10(2) prohibits furnishing any significantly false information to an election officer for the purpose of voting in a federal election. Whether a statement is significantly false is determined by whether its importance to voter eligibility under the law of the state in which the vote was tendered. This is
a new statute that was added by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and it took effect in most states on January 1, 1995

PENAL CODE
In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual (damages to people for contributions made under the assumption he was qualified); and is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud.

Sec. 32.44. RIGGING PUBLICLY EXHIBITED CONTEST. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to affect the outcome (including the score) of a publicly exhibited contest:
(2) he tampers with a person, animal, or thing in a manner contrary to the rules of the contest.
c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Sec. 32.46. SECURING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT BY DECEPTION. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to defraud or harm any person, he, by deception:
(2) causes or induces a public servant to file or record any purported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an order, a directive, or process of:
(C) a purported judicial officer of a purported court or purported judicial entity described by Paragraph (A) or (B).

Sec. 32.52. FRAUDULENT, SUBSTANDARD, OR FICTITIOUS DEGREE. (a) In this section, "fraudulent or substandard degree" has the meaning assigned by Section 61.302, Education Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(2) uses or claims to hold that degree:
(B) with the intent to:
(i) obtain employment;
(ii) obtain a license or certificate to practice a trade, profession, or occupation;
(iii) obtain a promotion, a compensation or other benefit, or an increase in compensation or other benefit, in employment or in the practice of a trade, profession, or occupation;
(v) gain a position in government with authority over another person, regardless of whether the actor receives compensation for the position.



TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION


Sec. 37.03. AGGRAVATED PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Sec. 37.11. IMPERSONATING PUBLIC SERVANT. (a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) impersonates a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts; or
(2) knowingly purports to exercise any function of a public servant or of a public office, including that of a judge and court, and the position or office through which he purports to exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no lawful existence under the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

MEDIA Gloating over Obama's Eligibility Defeat Stranger than SCOTUS Anti- Natural Born Citizen?

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:

MEDIA Gloating over Obama's Eligibility Defeat Stranger than SCOTUS Anti- Natural Born Citizen?
Update:
Inteview tonight - Wensday 8pm MST I'm being interviewed for about an hour on this show tonight by Mr. Donald Rutledge
www.truthfindersnetwork.com


Amidst the hoop-la and media frenzy surrounding the debates is the 'stone-cold-silence' that something really horrific has just happened in the United States Supreme Court. You don't have to be a Birther, only a part of the silent majority to understand this.

The media has covered very well over the last four years the reasons that the eligibility challenge to Obama's qualifications has failed, and the biggest reason if you were paying any attention at all, was that 'standing' had not been fulfilled. There was not a presidential candidate in the race, in the same party, suffering a loss because Obama was running under a different set of rules and in such was cheating in the race within his own party, and in such depriving eligible qualified candidates of everything he was siphoning off, including campaign contributions, free media spot-lights, and a framed window to the general electorate that was skewed in fraud and forgery.

All the cases that were trumpeted with horns and fanfare by the Media were dismissed over something even Birthers came to grasp as understandable with the three legs of standing once again if you missed they are:
Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

'Staying in the race and competitively making commercials, having everything necessary to compete as a campaign for President isn't cheap", says Cody Robert Judy, "We all recall John Huntsman getting out at 12 million dollars in the middle of January, Rick Santorum in April after 23 million, so we understand fundraising cost money, commercials cost money, staff, web sites, travel, the list goes on and on and on. So I hope people understand the level of commitment it has taken to stay in and here it is October, with our last 3 commercials being made just a couple of weeks ago. As a Campaign we had to be able to present ourselves ready and able to step in and be competitive with Mitt Romney at any time a Court made a decision."

The campaign was actually forced to go on because of the case in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 12-5276 appealed all the way through the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire and Georgia early in the presidential contest. Every Court we legitimately gave the benefit of the doubt to even if it was simply that through the State Supreme Courts the hand off might be made to the United States Supreme Court to ultimately decide a federal election question for all 50 states.

When Cody was asked if he thought the Monday decision to deny his Petition for Certiorari was made with an informed Court rather then glossed over or thrown in the same category of "no standing", Cody re-iterated, " I actually have no official way to calculate that. I know Analyst are in charge of breaking cases down for the Justices and there are so many cases in conference on those days my guess is they are more or less debating the ones that are fed to them, and I actually could clearly understand how for instance my case and Weldon v. Obama's case could be thrown into the same pot of 'no standing', but that case and mine are so far apart in the calculations and losses that our standing is clearly not even in the same category or realm as far as losses due to Obama's eligibility. WELDON was not running a presidential campaign, how could they be even close to the same financial scale or loss and injury?"

"If that's what happened, I can understand it, and I could understand how that could happen, but it clearly doesn't represent justice, or, the standing argument put to rest and Obama's eligibility considered with the evidence we had supporting fraud and forgery, which ultimately means a fraud committed with every single vote placed for him,or campaign dollar contributed."

"I actually think the media would be writing BIG STORIES and celebrating the fact that Obama has won the eligibility question without hiding behind the 'standing' argument. That in itself has been shouted upon the housetops of the anti-birther blogs as a calculation that in fact the United States Constitution has been changed without the legislative branch having to vote on the approval by 2/3rds majority."

" This is big news, the "natural born citizen" qualification clause of the United States Constitution has been really officially changed by this precedent with no standing dismissal coming in between the argument and the decision."

Anti-Birthers have blasted such things as " You see it takes more than 'standing!'", so they have celebrated this big time. The Main Stream Media I would think would grab a hold of this and tell it to every house-hold in America.

To fully appreciate the magnitude of the decision, and the equivalent of the loss, one must quantify the mentality to hide or keep secret the decision of the United States Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court in denying my Petition for Certiorari. This is really an embarrassment to the anti-Birthers celebration, and that's why if one suspects its legitimate and the Justices were informed of the differences of our cases, a full and intelligent decision has been made and basically ceded the qualification of president understood in the Constitution which has not happened in legislative history!

Does anyone understand here that the Constitution has been re-written by the Justices with this decision? That's the magnitude of this decision. Now I didn't think the Constitution could be re-written by the United States Supreme Court under the laws prohibiting construction, but that has obviously happened also. There is no reason any foreign ruler cannot come over to America and one day be President with this ruling.

Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America? The Conservative leg of SCOTUS are not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

Cody continued, " Now what is not to report to every house-hold in America, unless, there is a little different thing going on? I suggest, if a decision has been made re-writing the Constitution, and that is not being celebrated by the Media, more then likely, ,my case was not represented to the Justices by the case analyst as very different in standing and circumstances then Weldon v. Obama."

"I really think this shows all of us, they through all of the Georgia cases in the same pot, which would be about as educated decision as throwing everyone in prison for a death sentence. It doesn't even make sense."

"In fact the following comment I received on my blog makes much more sense if indeed my case was not thrown in the same pot, and under these circumstances, the conservative branch of the whole United States Supreme Court really has grounds for being removed from the bench, and a Congressional Hearing and investigation needs to be undertaken immediately."

Anonymous Comment made:

[ It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.

The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and the certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any.
That's quite a laugh. ]


Cody Robert Judy's Response:
[That is a good laugh for them I suppose.., and a good reason they should lose their nice cushy jobs because they failed the Constitution. There's a legislative mandate that says so, as we all know how many times the 'attempt' was made to change it in the Legislative Branch and the attempts failed. Its NOT their job to re-write it, and the construction prohibitions of the Constitutions say so. I do think your comment was very insightful, and I appreciate it.]

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign - Cody Robert Judy - www.codyjudy.us - www.codyjudy.blogspot.com - YouTube: CODE4PRES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cCOHC2hW5A

OBAMA'S CARNIVAL BARKER - A CRJ Original

OBAMA'S CARNIVAL BARKER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cCOHC2hW5A





Obama's Carnival Barker is an original song written,produced,and performed by The Cody Robert Judy Band encouraging voters to make a good decision for the Constitution, the importance of which cannot be simply written off.

When considering the forgery and fraud presented to the United States Supreme Court just simply from a Constitutional perspective in Obama's identification documents, it is easy to understand that upholding the Constitution by interpreting it, and holding the lower courts to precedence is a duty that the Judicial Branch of our Government, as one of the three legs , is charged in doing.

If one of these legs fails, our whole system easily crashes, becomes unbalanced, and a perversion of our Republic ensues catapulting the United States "Back" not "Forward" as Obama claims he would like to go, to an age before the Revolution.

The message from Cody Robert Judy, " We can't go back forsaking the courage, blood, and vision of our Forefathers Obama. Maybe, you should go back to where it was you were born".

Enjoy

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube: CODE4PRES