Monday, April 27, 2015

BREAKING NEWS: Candidate for President Invites All Scholar Reviews for Natural Born Citizen to Amicus Curiae Review in U.S. Supreme Court

BREAKING NEWS: Candidate for President Invites All Scholar Reviews for Natural Born Citizen to Amicus Curiae Review in U.S. Supreme Court
Put up or Shut up is the clear message from Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy

The Amicus Curiae or Friend of the Court

In the most critical and controversial court, which is that of the court of public opinion, the vital artery of national defense understood as the 'natural born Citizen' qualification requirement for the Office of President and Vice President is being cut into by both Republicans and Democrats. In 2007 "Birthers" were a yet unknown group upon the American Pyche but the incubation was about to burst as in 2008 with Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never had a case involving two Presidential Candidates squared off with one citing the other is ineligible based on one not being a 'natural born Citizen' and causing harm to the others Campaign in American History, but that is exactly what has happen and is happening in the newly docketed Case in the Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 14-9396.

Many would say the issue is over with Obama in the White House, but scholarly reviews differ in points of view. A consensus is building at least with the political ground shifting with Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and even former Governor of California weighing in on the circumstances of the civil battle which offsets the turf Obama has already infringed upon. If it stopped Arnold Schwarzenegger who emphazised so much appreciation to the opportunity America has given, shouldn't it stop Sen. Ted Cruz? Indeed, a few of America's Presidents were not born here, or didn't have parents who were Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the exemption was tied into the Constitution as part of the requirement recognizing the jurisdictional importance of the ratification of the Constitution as Supreme Law.

Three such reviews all being used as weapons at the bully pulpit have come in the reviews published by scholastic establishments but are notably missing actual legal case numbers we associate with the interpretation of law and the United States Constitution.

1-The Harvard Law Review published a Commentary by two former Solicitor Generals in Neal Katyal and Paul Clement published as "On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" March 11,2015.

2-Professor Sarah Duggin
stated: “No, I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. I think the better argument is that Senator Cruz is eligible to run for president and to serve as president of the United States. But absent a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment, it is not open-and-shut.”

'The potential controversy attached to Cruz’s legal standing to run for president has precedent in recent times. The late Sen. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona while it was still a territory and not technically part of the United States. More recently, some people argued that his birth in the Panama Canal Zone should have disqualified Sen. John McCain from running.'

She wrote " Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen eligible to serve as president?" acknowledging the very difficult standards for the Supreme Court to even be able to weigh in on the subject because of the laws conducting 'standing' really requiring another Presidential Candidate to bring it to the Court, and then hurdling the 'political doctrine question' which disfavors the Court interfering with elections for one party or the other.

3- Regent University Law Professor C. Scott Pryor highlighted the paper in a recent blog post also taking a swipe at the recent Harvard Law Review citing a John Jones published a scholarly paper, "Natural Born Shenanigans: How the Birther Movement Exacerbated Confusion Over the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen" published in the Regent University Law Review on the Article II "natural born Citizen" requirement controversy stating "Whatever its merits, the birther movement’s persistent advocacy against Obama’s eligibility in the face of hard facts may have actually helped to downplay and discredit a distinct, more legally credible challenge to the candidate’s status as a natural born citizen."


While scholarly reports and commentaries are valuable they indeed to not have the impact of being law and when the laws are especially uncomfortable to politicians every effort may be used to bully the law or jar it out of place for the convenience of politicians in this case wanting to take advantage and pursue ulterior political ambition.


A recent natural born Citizen documentary video was featured winning a prestigious Telly Award. This video is very informative and highlights in seven minutes the origins and real founding of the natural born Citizen clause as a requirement for the Office of the President.

In Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)the Chief Justice of the United States Honorable John Marshall stated: "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should"

"The Judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution."

"We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it,if it be brought before us."

"We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution."

In the controversial issue of wither a State must recognize another States marriage of same-sex couples, and wither States should be compelled to offer a Same Sex (SS) Marriage licence as it does a Opposite Sex (OS) Marriage Licence the Supreme Court has agreed to here a dissenting Circuit Court Case Appeal that could really bring the remaining 13 States outlawing SS Marriage into harmony with the 37 that have adopted it as a featured 'Citizens' right. This is a case of individuals and their rights in love to marry and receive the benefits and be held accountable to the same tax laws and credits given to OS Marriage couples. That case is under James Obergefell, et al v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health. Docket 14-556 and featured three briefs before it was sent to Conference in the Supreme Court.

After it was decided the Case would be heard by the Supreme Court, meaning at least 4 of the Justices voted to hear it, when it went to conference, and at current near 140 Amicus Curiae Briefs have been filed by individuals and organizations all over the United States both 'for' and 'against' the issue for the Court to reference.

Now think of this. The defense in modern terms has always been a primary concern that the Republicans and its various groups and PACS that have supported and apposed cut backs. You could say the Republicans are better at appropriating money for defense programs. So what does it say about Republicans who love "Defense" of the Country when it comes to fighting and protecting America's interest abroad, to not care who is in the Office of the President or what Qualifications have been violated? Isn't that a "WELCOME SIGN" to anyone who can tunnel under the U.S. Constitution into the White House and then be protected by the very defense that we were suppose to be protected by with all that Defense appropriations money?

What's the message Republicans have propagated from their pulpit? Its not really the Defense of Americans and our Future Generations that were concerned about its really not our concern. We just want to grease the defense building war machines and target practice on foreign soil? They don't give a muscrats whisker about the 'natural born Citizen' national defense security measure as a qualification that no foreign loyalty be divested in the Commander-In-Chief with his finger on the red nuke codes and his executive pen able to legalize a foreign army invading America? Gosh, they strong on national defense for foreign fights but weak on domestic tranquility?

In other words, if we have domestic enemies get in we have no defense? Well, Democrats don't have a much better record accept for the one Democratic Candidate running for President who has upheld in Court Records the national defense of the 'natural born Citizen' clause across Party Lines in Judy v. McCain and Judy v. Obama that is now finally in the United States Supreme Court.


LETTER OF CONSENT BY PETITIONER for all Amicus Curiae Briefs for or against to weigh in on Natural Born Citizen qualifications for President

Letter of Consent Amicus Curiae via Petitioner

The invitation is and has been given for anyone who is concerned and who is able to find an attorney who is legally qualified to practice in the United States Supreme Court to file their concern or assist in this great national security defense of our Country. Are their any groups or PACs interested I suppose we will see but at least it is brought to the Court as a matter of RECORD. The Response is due May 20th, and it usually goes to conference soon thereafter, so there is not a lot of time for those interested to file one.

This case like the SS Marriage Case, is a fight for Individual Rights and certainly effects every American who isn't concerned with who they are have or don't have a right to marry. This case effects Health Care, Amnesty, and the very vital vein individual rights we all want protected so in this sense effects many more Americans then the single issue of SS Marriage.

How much good is it going to do you if when you finally win at the Supreme court the right to marry that a Commander-In-Chief walks in and dismisses Congress and the Courts with an indictment upon all Gay People to report to the internment camp? That right there is the respect or the lack of respect for upholding the Constitution and in it the vital artery of the 'natural born Citizen' clause required for the Office of the President and the Vice President.

Let me point out that the support for Principle over Party is so ambiguous and disingenuous that it may seem partisan with Republicans and Democrats in the same field as wanting to adopt the same communism that runs over 'individual rights' and rounds up and imprisons those who would twurk in front of a national monument which is what happened in Russia who has not adopted the United States Constitution as an import. If you do not appreciate freedom of speech, freedom of the press and any other right as an individual here in America, by all means the fastest way to violate each and every one is through the current Office of the President's invitation to abolish the 'natural born Citizen' clause all together.

Forgive me if I do not share your sentiment that it is not important and may God forgive you for treading upon your own freedom and liberty on one hand, and saying you wanted it on the other. One of the things I know God didn't like was a hypocrite and sometimes it is very hard not to be seen like that, which is why "Change" is invited through Repentance with the Good Lord in my humble opinion.

In short, this INVITATION,I hope you will share with your favorite law professor,and certainly gives all of the Scholastic and Scholarly Opinion Writers a 'chance' to actually get it on the RECORD of the United States Supreme Court. If they do not accept the invitation then of course you know they're 'opinion's' are nothing more than that and they are not willing to come to the Court with them with any degree of integrity.

Cody Robert Judy
Now Read: Obama's Bubble About to Burst!

Enjoy our newly March Released THREE MINUTE infomercial entitled The Birthers and please join us anyway you can in supporting the restoration of our U.S. Constitution along with our Nation and the opportunity we all want. Please understand that however benign you may attribute a Candidate who is not qualified by being 'Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents', the very process of dismissing and not honoring the Office of the President with its unique qualification is a process to destroy the umbrella with the Office that sits in the middle of the United States Constitution, as its most important key holder.
The compromise on the 'natural born Citizen' clause is a compromise on the Blessings of God our Nation has been protected by, and a witness that time and place included in describing the Birth of our Nation are of no value.

Join us in taking a stand for "this place" and "this time" honored tradition in the United States of America.]

Cody Robert Judy for President 2016 find us on Facebook, Twitter and the Web.

Please visit my web site and study the 3 point platform and 7 point platform.
Thanks You so much!
Cody Robert Judy

We need your help. Will you help us or are the outrageous lies your being told by your elected leaders okay for you and your children? Indeed, it is time to Restore America's Trust Today for a Better America Tomorrow.

We NEED YOUR HELP AMERICA now, to take the 10th Circuit Court's Decision not to hear Cody's Case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We are Taking a Stand for individual Civil Rights and against an unprecedented ASSAULT upon your Constitution and prior decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court! With your help we can make it happen. You are a very important key to this. So its up to you America to help Restore America Today for a Better America Tomorrow. Like, Share, and Help us in the Contribution Revolution.


Get your questions answered by ordering Cody Robert Judy's Book here.

The 2016 Campaign begins now. Please send your contributions and help with the ABC (American Birther Campaign) today and my election for President in 2016 and Join the 257 of us now on my Facebook Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President 2016 site.

Cody Robert Judy for President 2016
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401

Thank you
Cody Robert Judy
Candidate for United States President 2016


The Commercial is simply called "America"


P.S. I don't get anything for the sales of this coin. No contributions or anything , I just think its kinda cool. Get your commemorative 2015 Birther coin today!


  1. AMICUS BRIEF filed on Jan. 23, 2012 in Georgia Presidential Eligibility Cases by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

  2. lgstarr;

    Leo's Amicus was / is a valuable work that goes all but the last mile with very few errors of statutory interpretations.

    Among those errors Leo gave credit to the 14th for a power it does not posses when he states; ... " ... The 14th Amendment, and the natural-born citizen clause are very capable of coexistence.The Amendment is our general citizenship clause, while Article 2, Section 1, provides the specific requirement for Presidential eligibility.

    I suggest that the 14th is NOT a "general citizenship clause" but rather a "specific provision" to cure a specific deficiency, i.e., the condition of Statelessness", insofar as "national political character" is concerned, and does so in a "collective naturalization" manner.

    The "General Rule of U.S. Citizenship" was, is and always will be found 1st expressed in the 1790 Act, in words that say so and words that require it.

  3. Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “


    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

    The FACT that Judge Anderson was unable to determine whether the "0" is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen under the circumstances of his birth is because there is no uniformly acknowledged legal and enforceable identification of the requisite circumstances attending at birth that constitutes being in conformity with the term of words usage in the COTUS.

    The language and vernacular that the Framers of the COTUS were familiar with was Statutory Construction as engrossed by the Committee of Detail by John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Oliver Ellsworth, James Wilson, and Nathaniel Gorham.

    Justice Waite in Minor v observed that; " ... The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also...."

    Judge Anderson comments; " ... “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “

    The 1790 Act answers both; " ... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ..."

    The application of Rules of Statutory Interpretation reveals the legal status of a U.S. natural born Citizen then and now when construed under the federal laws.

    If you are truly interested in WINNING on the "Citizenship Question" I suggest you adopt the ONLY winning strategy on the subject and "construe" the federal laws of the COTUS.