Author - Cody Robert Judy
Conservative Independent American
Candidate for Pres 16, 12, 08
U.S. Senate 18, 10, 04, 00
U.S. Rep. 02
Book: Taking A Stand - The conservative independent Voice
Sticks & Stones May Break My Bones, But the Names & Faces Don't Stick
_______
Well west side of 300 + on the Electoral Map is not something the Democrats saw coming in Poll Predictions. Maybe they need new prophets? Wait a minute maybe they knew it was going to happen, when they canceled the 'Fire Works Show"? Maybe they were using every tool in their arsenal to change the hearts and minds of the people or create a sense of inevitability simply as strategy? Ok, we'll use the media, we'll use the bank roll, we'll use the ground game, we'll use the Polls, and we'll cast everyone out who opposes us until we are all in a room together saying the same thing and repeating it until we all believe it? It's the definition of GROUP THINK that's in a THINK TANK. Truth is the way to People's minds and People's hearts and names and faces don't really stick.
In my B.A. in Psychology I was fascinated with the theory of GROUP THINK, especially as it involved itself with the politics of President John F. Kennedy in The Bay of Pigs which roughly culminated in the following:
GROUP THINK is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences
[Irving Janis felt that Kennedy’s top advisors were unwilling to challenge bad ideas because it might disturb perceived or desired group concurrence. Presidential advisor Arthur Schlesinger, for instance, presented serious objections to the invasion in a memorandum to the president, but suppressed his doubts at the team meetings. Attorney General Robert Kennedy privately admonished Schlesinger to support the president’s decision to invade. At one crucial meeting, JFK called on each member for his vote for or against the invasion. Each member, that is, except Schlesinger — whom he knew to have serious concerns. Many members assumed other members agreed with the invasion plan.{8}
Schlesinger later lamented, “In the months after the Bay of Pigs I bitterly reproached myself for having kept so silent during those crucial discussions in the cabinet room.” He continued, “I can only explain my failure to do more than raise a few timid questions by reporting that one’s impulse to blow the whistle on this nonsense was simply undone by the circumstances of the discussion.”{9}
Have you ever kept silent when you felt you should speak up? President Kennedy later revised his group decision-making process to encourage dissent and debate. The change helped avert a nuclear catastrophe, as we will see. cont..]
I count the adversarial and opposition or anti- "Birther Movement" as one of the great GROUP THINK phenomenons in modern day politics. If advisers, pundits, and even Justices were truthful, they would see not one real honest debate was heard by the United States Supreme Court and it was trivialized as unimportant.
Now as hind site is 20/20 with the amount of credibility that the Hillary Clinton & Her Campaign gave to the [Birther Movement] as a weapon against her opponent without Donald Trump actually being ineligible by the U.S. Constitution's Qualifications of a [natural born Citizen] ie. {Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents}, you would have to concede she thought it was credible as a weapon. It was a staple in her diet, or in other words a stump in her stump speech.
Now I notice today in news reports with the Main Stream Media trying to make some kind of sense out of their getting it so wrong, that they are rationalizing that while Obama remained popular the country wanted change. This is delusion politically speaking, and a perfect manifestation of grasping at straws in order to avoid the Truth, or in other words justify the lie.
This rhetoric from Joan Vennochi sums it up perfectly from the Boston Globe: "
But Obama’s latest approval rating of 54 percent is the highest it has been since his reelection. And to some degree, that reflects the country’s judgment of Obama vs. Trump. IIP. Obama can be cutting, at times arrogant, and a trifle too cute, with his “mic drop” act. But given the deplorables and the racists with whom he had to contend, give him a break.
Deplorable never really was considered a 'noun' that could be used as a label, but was used mostly to describe a condition as in execrable, miserable, woeful, wretched inferio condemnable, criminal, reprehensible, vicious wrong.
Hillary Clinton was the Queen of name calling I'd like to know how many times she accused Birthers or the Birther Movement in her stump speeches, and we all know where the noun Deplorables surfaced. That makes two very large swaths directed as derogatory labels used in her Campaign by her own mouth to disparage more than half the Nation if you count the Electoral Collage Map today.
Listen to the laughter of this crowd as Hillary calls half of Trump Supporters "Deplorables", those are elitist laughing and Hillary knows the audience and she's preaching to the choir:
Now I want to say a new Hillary Clinton emerged November 9th, 2016, or maybe a much more humble one, but this one touched my heart. I was shedding tears at her concession speech, which is a much different response than bristling at her 'labeling' while she simultaneously claimed "Love Trumps Hate" and "When they go Low, We go High", neither of which I've found to be particularly true.
I was really touched when she related how proud she was to be an American and how she invoked a blessing at her closing in God Bless America. Tears run down my face as I heard her relate her hopes and dreams to all the little girls watching and I saw how much that was affecting so many girls and women there. I pondered how, (even if it was unfairly with Bernie Sanders and disparagingly with a complete black out on my Campaign for President), she had obtained for the record books the first Female Nominee of a Major Party. She had gone far and admiringly had served as U.S. Senator of New York, one of the most populated states of the Union, and served as First Lady for two terms. No one had seen my campaign, no one was crying over the tread marks on my face that she'd left.
Yet, I was able to love Hillary Clinton. I was able to comprehend how far she'd come and that this was probably her last Campaign, unless she needed one as a defense to stay out of prison for Usurping the Secretary of State's Office by crushing the responsibility and accountability of FOIA. I felt the sorrow and condolences as a fellow Democrat of a team player who had just screwed up royally, but who I wasn't prepared to kick off the team because of a botched play or a billion dollar losing campaign. She'd lost and so had I. Democrats LOST!!! We should say it over and over and over again, until we figure out how to win, and that demands FACING what went wrong.
I would frankly ask Hillary Clinton who was the hardest on her during the entirety of the 2016 Campaign, me or Donald Trump? You take a look at this Blog read the 690 entrees top to bottom, or at least the last 300 and you will see there was no one harder on Hillary Clinton the Cody Robert Judy. I'll tell you why.
It's because I love that women, and I wanted her to succeed so badly. I grieved her mistakes like they were my own. I was not a part of the GROUP THINK that was in the TANK and my advice was shunned if it was acknowledged at all. I really want to say the same applies to Barack Obama. I've said many times I'd love to get schooled in basketball or on the golf course by Barack Obama. I admire his very talented politically savvy speaking skills and political abilities with People. I understand completely the sorrow of casting out of your house someone you love, but that has done something awful and deserving of being cast out.
God himself cast out Lucifer and one third of the angels followed him. Obama was never qualified to be United States President by the Law of the United States Constitution in the qualifications of the Office of President in the United States Constitution's demands for a 'natural born Citizen', but that did'nt mean he couldn't be a political operative like a U.S. Senator or good golf match. It didn't mean Birthers hated Obama, but in parlance he sealed up the golf course entrance so we couldn't play golf.
Trump was labeled by Hillary Clinton as leading the Birther Movement. If Trump wants to open up the gate to Birthers so they can play golf, the same gate Obama closed, Obamacare can find it's repeal without Congress's Help. We notice Democrats maneuvering in an excuse for Obama stating how popular he was, but we do not see Justice happening in a TRIAL of the Court, but we sure saw it in the Election.
It's impossible to notice Obama has flamed out. His three major accomplishments touted as a Legacy (Stimulus, Obamacare, and Iran) are disasters in spite of being the most well funded Administration in U.S. History (10 Trillion), as they say, all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again. That is the definition of failure. I mean, Solyndra on Acid.
WHAT WENT WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATS GAME PLAN?
Economic Disaster - Hillary represented rich people as "Stupid" to "Poor" people in her economic Platform. She told people "trickle down economics" didn't work and we'd tried that, but failed to mention to the poor people that the rich people (over $250,000/yr) who were going to be "taxed" "their fair share" would simple took their money out of the U.S. and opened Cayman Island bank accounts to wait out the President's term and so the poor people end up footing the bill or having the national debt laid on them as "the slaves" she perceived them to be.
You might say Hillary Clinton knew this very well which is why the Clinton Charities went Global and actually were caught cheating on the taxes, so they had to "Amend" six years of them. Trump stated he took advantage of Tax Law like anyone else to pay the least amount possible, like anyone would if they were rich. Trump understands that which is why he proposed Tariffs to Companies who took their products outside the USA to take advantage of lower standards and wages, no unemployment wages, and no healthcare cost.
One of the great stumbles of this gamble is ultimately what may be the sacrifice of principles dear to the social civil rights crowd. How do, for example, LGBT Advocates feel about the stumble of Hillary Clinton's economic theories translating into U.S. Supreme Court recommendations? Let's say for instance Same-Sex Marriage was rolled back based on the gamble that the first women President would win the General Election after a fraudulent Primary? Or for instance, that Pro Choice advocates lost the right to an abortion in half the States due to the Country voting for Trump's Economic Expertise?
You see I say Hillary Clinton sacrificed all those "Rights", because she was feeling pressure from Wall Street to maintain the status quo of keeping the American People as the consumers rather than shifting the equilibrium of fairness onto Tariffs as profits for the USA. Tariff's haven't been used for a long time but in our modern day economy to discipline American Corporations from exploits of modern day slavery Tariffs can be an equalizer, and especially to foreign Tyrannical Governments devaluation of currency, thus laying debt on them while the rich took up interest in tax free off shore bank accounts.
Clearly there are enough American Corporations avoiding Taxes and Expenses this way to bring in a lot of Tariff Revenue to offset lost taxes Companies would actually be paying here, and especially that smaller businesses are paying the bulk of.
Trumps Economic prowess establishes an incentive for Corporations to come back cutting a 35% Tax Rate down to 15%, not bad, especially to avoid a 35% Tariff of products they are importing. It also creates jobs that pay taxes and flat-line the national debt while helping the population and the People afford more at home. Hillary was very apposed to this across the board cut to big corporations saying it didn't work, but she did so not also figuring the Tariff of 35% which is a stiff penalty but one that eliminates a loop hole this fat cats have been get fatter over. So Trump's plan actually does more to help the poor people than any of what Hillary was proposing.
I relate this Economical Consideration in the face of those Democrats crying foul mouthed that Dodd-Frank is also on the chopping block with Republicans. I say not so fast or necessarily James Carville. Well, let's not forget it was President Bill Clinton who chopped that tree down first by revoking Glass/Steagal.
President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate." Many commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–08.[9][10] Economists at the Federal Reserve, such as Ben Bernanke, have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.
With this mis-calculation on the Economic Health of the Nation, Democrats lost the high ground to Trump. Was there a Democratic Candidate for President who actually agreed or was the architect of Trump's Economic Plan that flat out would have appealed to the Economic Worries of the Nation attracted to the Honeycomb like bees, but who would have been a fierce protector of all the Civil Rights Gains of the modern day Century Democrats are now very worried they might lose?
Why Yes, but Democrats were not told about him as he faced a black out by the DNC.
You know I gotta tell ya Democrats, you are facing extinction now. Seriously, you have allowed Obama's illegal entry into the Office of the President lose you now three branches of Government, that you enjoyed for a very short time. If you do not start understanding economic soundness and get out of Group Think, you never will regain a Branch of Government, especially with Trump smarts leading the way. Trump took my Platform, but it is Best for America now, so I'm happy to see it implemented and I can only hope to influence him somehow on the social justice principles that we face now in the U.S. Supreme Court.
As our Nation rounds the corner in the Election 2016 into the first hundred days of a Trump Administration we can only hope Republicans are not so blinded in their economic reform plan that they also become blinded in the Social Justice Reform and Progress we have made and that needs to continue so badly. I indeed hope that President Elect Donald J. Trump will employ those who agree with his Economic Platform and will simultaneously truly engage it with the support of All Americans with the considerations of love and mercy in the Social Justice and Equality Platform that will allow our Nation to come into a very strong and prosperous harmony of Freedom and Liberty and Justice for All.
I'll end here with a Link to Trump's very nice Victory Speech made very late last night which was his first as President Elect. Congratulations! It's True - Birthers have won! But really, its respect and honor for our U.S. Constitution that we honor as Article II Patriots!
God Bless America, and God Bless our Nation to come together where we have been divided and to heal where we have been wounded!
Between 1765 and 1783 a Revolution took place that parted the British Crown from the United States of America. The strangest thing that has ever occurred is that while America opened her arms to Immigrants for a new nation, a new Race of People known as Americans was also born. Traitors and Tyrants have never stopped trying to tear the heart of this great Nation apart, and at the heart of the new Jurisdiction of the United States of America was the U.S. Constitution and at its nucleus was the Office of President.
Today I reflected over the last 7 years and the severe losses that have been incurred on all Birthers. They have been mocked,ridiculed, disenfranchised, disparaged, and paid the smallest sum of gratitude imaginable by the Courts of Law and the Main Stream Media and what for? Defending the Country? What an honor it has been for me to fight the good civil fight with them. We have been a minority, but truly as reflected in Polls of 2011, 4 in 10 voters, nearly 50% of the Country, was rooting for Birthers.
Basically the charge revolves around their defense and barrier of an American Race.. a New Nation. For whatever reason motivates those who have done the barking, growling, and pounding of chest against them, the simple fact is that the exposure of anti-birthers is more anti-american than American.
For those who have pounded the sand for America a real struggle and real fight was felt for survival. If you managed to become a Citizen you know the struggle was real. If you manged to have children here in a second generation, you knew there was no other Country to call home. This was your tribe, your Country, your Land, and there was no going back.
For those who paid the dues for two generations the qualification for the Highest Office in the Land was an incentive, a positive reward for the distinguished honor of being All American. I'd like to present a comment I made on ObamaConspiracy.org Post because it strikes at the heart of what we as Birthers have been defending.
[The Minor Court went on to look for a definition in the English Common Law]
When ever the closeness of English Law and American Law are nestled together the axiom of similarities between the Gorilla and the Horse come to mind.
Yes it's True. They are both animals. However in the context and contrast of [ natural born Subject] v. [natural born Citizen] I cannot imagine not noticing the differences much more than the similarities.
The preposterous similarities used are seen near infirm with a very simple question:
Did natural born Subjects in their state understood by the esteemed King of the Crown 👑 ever assume the passage guaranteed to them, to the Thrown, by Election, as part of the "rights and privileges"?
The answer is not only NO, but HELL NO!
Right to own property and claim on defense, as well as pay yr taxes was more to the flexibility of [natural born Subject] than someday becoming King, and to say otherwise is infirm.
Thus, on the subject of POTUS v. KING to similarize [natural born Subject] and [ natural born Citizen] is to recognize the similarities of the Gorilla and the Horse. Why do it when the differences so far out way similarities?
Twas Blackstone that railed upon Anchor Babies when he said, " Where no Protection can be Claimed, no Allegiance can be Due"
Twas also Blackstone that said in affect, "The place of Birth is Singular" and "No two places of allegiances can be had, for you can't serve two masters at Once"
There is no doubt Blackstone influenced common law in English Speaking countries.
But On the subject of [ natural born Citizen] it seems Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. [Of the citizens and natives] hits The Trust of POTUS writing [The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ]
This seems much more cognitive of the differences of KING and POTUS in context.
It is by Statute -Title 8 Aliens and Citizens at Birth §1401 a-h that those naturalized favored foreigners find [Citizen] status as is properly cited.
The confirmation of [natural born Citizen] in Title 8 ACT is withheld, and [natural born Citizen] was stripped in 1795 from 1790 in what has to be acknowledged as a hiccup rather than Original Intent.
The 1803 recognition in Congress of [ natural born Citizen] is touted a [Happy Barrier] against foreign influence.
Now, what happy barrier is consistent with [foreign influence] if foreigners crossing the border the moment of Birth are allowed qualified for the Office of President (Rubio), as also a Foreign Ambassador's children presuming allegiance against their father and mother born in a foreign state like The United States of America or Canada (Cruz) ?
Of course American Law has adopted in naturalization statutes these naturalized favored foreigners at Birth accept the Office of President. This is based on a matter of Time, for their children born here are able and Qualified for that Office.
The Qualification of natural born Citizen is about TIME and the preservation of a unique American Culture that neutralizes things like.. Oh say Radical Jihadist into a more acceptable tolerance of a multiple religions state as an example.
Madison did recognize the influence of both Place and Parents and Smith's example of not filling 7 yrs residency is poor fodder in the 2 Generations of Time for the Office of President in the Term born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents for [natural born Citizen]
This is why to write: @Doc [It is a reasonable transition, not violating original intent, that these current statues govern who is a citizen from birth, and hence a natural-born citizen.] is a conundrum.
Statutes are naturalization strategies for taxes, land, and Civil Rights for Citizens, not a Determination of lowering the Time Period required for [natural born Citizen][ship] status required for the a office of President and VP.
Yes, I am an American Racist which is to say a racist for the plurality of races and cultures poured together , the result of two generations exhibiting a purity worthy of distinguishment and the qualification of the Office of President.
Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents
That's American
End Comment
Serving Americans now through a Civil Appeal process verses waiting for Election Civil War. What makes more sense to you? That is what Judy v. Obama 14-9396 has offered, and why it is understood that the DENIAL of a Motion for Forma Pauperis by the U.S. Supreme Court was arbitrary.
Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.
Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!
Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!
Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.
1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396
Other Courts
12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin
The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.
Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President
POLITICS MAKES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS- Jeb Bush becoming the Victim of Birtherism rather than Champion of Principle?
A few weeks ago now I wrote Jeb Bush a private letter. Often times as we see with the varying Republican Campaign Managers voicing a get-together on a particular vexing problem mutually troublesome like CNBC's low balling questions to Candidates in Wednesday nights Republican Candidate Debate , Candidates even from across the isle can reach out to one another for a mutual principle aggrieved for a more bi-partisan cause and effect.
"Out of your weaknesses which troubles you the most, and how are you going about fixing it?", was in parlance one of those gotcha questions from CNBC Moderators in the debate last night meant to expose Candidates rather than Receive from their View a wisdom.
In their own defense CNBC stuck up for their Moderators stating a Candidate seeking the highest office must be able to field the toughest questions. However, it's a little distracting from a "Candidate's Debate" to embroil or overshadow a debate with the Moderators opinion.
We've yet to see for instance Hillary Clinton asked, " Since you abandoned the cries for help of 4 people in Benghazi who we're murdered, why should Americans not think you'd do the same for them?"
That question would parallel the one asked to Rubio ,(again parlanced), "Since you have failed in your own finances so miserably, Why should America trust you with a Multiple Trillion dollar budget?" , as if the Office of the President was entirely responsible and Congress had no say in it.
It is of course true, Candidates for President are indeed subject to Leadership Questions and all their character flaws are subjects of exposure. Its a lot like being paraded out naked with only a podium to stand behind.
The objectivity of the questions being whose left without blemish, or perhaps even a "now you know how she feels" in a pay-back of a Moderators particular favorite. While not unreasonable, it is very uncomfortable standing naked in the cold for anyone.
Candidates with high expectations have a double edge sword of trouble to face. That sword comes swiftly from opponents at and in Debate as well as the wealthiest contributors of the GOP who have ponied up over 100 Million Dollars so far for say a Candidate like Jeb Bush.
How would you like to be former Gov. Jeb Bush very close to the bottom in losing debates facing your 100 Million Dollars of Contributors this morning?
In multiple Polls "Conservative Drudge" "Liberal CNBC" both showed Bush in lower single digits far below ineligible Candidates Cruz and Rubio thought by Bush early on to be freshman gnats to be swatted away with the Sledge of Fundraising prowess.
"That's why the very small polling bump for Marco Rubio, not the soaring numbers of Trump and Carson, is Bush's biggest threat."
Poll used in Vox Article
The article looks to explain or understand Jeb's sinking ship with Donald Trump's entry into the race, the lack of GOP Grassroots within Bush's Campaign and his reliance on Big Money Donors, but still grasps rather than relates understanding:
[As grim as things are for Bush, he remains effectively even with Rubio in Polls, drawing support in the high single digits both nationally and in New Hampshire. Every other current or former elected official except Ted Cruz - a politician despised by every other politician - is even lower. So when they're all doing so badly, I'm skeptical that its' traits unique to Bush, like his gaffes or his immigration views, that are preventing him from catching fire.]
ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT SO ANGRY
THE PHENOMENON OF BIRTHERISM IN AMERICA
REALITY CHECK RADIO SHOW PROMOTION
So what happened? When did the Establishment lose the Trust of the grass roots conservative movement in America? They seemed they were doing fine and indeed the Republicans have been rewarded with a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives 2010 and recently regained the U.S. Senate in 2014.
Somewhere between 2010 and 2015 the Republican Elite - Well connected and funded Money People lost track of the General Public or Grass Roots Conservative movement and there is still a lot more of the latter than the former when it comes to a long haul election campaign.
But that in-house resistance did not start in 2010 it began in 2008 with the uproar of Birtherism.
America had not had to deal with the problem for a very long time. Indeed every President of the 43 who have served is listed, at least on Wikipedia, as qualified under the Constitution's Article II., Section 1, Clause 5 requirements of being a [Citizen] at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a [natural born Citizen] thereafter ie. [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents], accept Barack Obama. Only recently in 2008 was Arthur's documents discovered proving his father had not naturalized as a Citizen although this is not seen as the case on Arthur's Wiki page.
While I as a Democratic Candidate for President in 2016, am doing my best to adhere to the rules of the Democratic Party, which has promised to disqualify any Candidate from the Party's remaining Sanctioned debates who strays from the six sanctioned debates authorized by the Democratic National Committee, I am not limited to debating Private Citizens who are not authorized as Candidates and a lot can be learned from just that if America tunes in.
Of all the comments the one that you really heard the Bat Crack on, might as well feature some baseball parallels with the world series going on, was the one made October 27th, 2015 at 1: 19 AM. Here it is , and I explain a little bit about why it is a home-run afterward:
[In question of how did President Washington fulfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?
Noticing the difference between being a [Citizen] for 14 years verses a [Resident] for 14 years is verily clear to me.
The Residency requirement did not require that to be as a Citizen, but a Resident.
One could fulfill the “14 Year Residency” by being a [R]esident in the Geography prior to bring a Citizen at the Adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the United States.
That is why the Constitution does NOT say and [14 years a Citizen of the United States] for the Office of President.
Now if you Notice this is very different from the Representative Requirements which in fact do say : [seven Years a Citizen of the United States] and also see U.S Senator [nine Years a Citizen of the United States]
Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.
So again, very clearly, the Office the President did not require a [14 year prior Citizenship] but clearly states [14 years a Resident within the United States]
And The first [Citizen] (s) were Adopted at the signing of the Constitution. We all agree Obama was not there.
[Citizen] was the requirement, because they ALL KNEW, (what many here have failed to either understand, or just blatantly want to stay or be ignorant about), there was no [ natural born Citizens]
Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Those first generation Adopted U.S. Citizens had children who were the [natural born Citizens] qualified for the Office of President.
It’s the [Supreme Law of the Land] , not racist. It’s WE THE PEOPLE’S [w]ill by Legislative Mandate, not a whipple of any particular minority.]
The INTENT of our Founders is made very bold in this comment and it stands very solid in debilitating the argument made against the unique qualifications for the Office of the President. One usually does not think about heading to the Resident Requirement for the Office of the President in contrast to the Citizenship requirement for U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senator and I'd almost bet that many politicians haven't done or recognized this profound difference.
What does it do? Well, the argument that 'natural born Citizen' and 'Citizen' is synonymous or mean the same thing is the equivalent of the oppositions argument. They would like to make these terms interchangeable like the words "Equal" or "Sum", but that is not the case.
[Natural born Citizen] is very unique. If you follow the debate on the link what you'll see is that those opposing the (born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) like to say that there were natural born Citizens of the United States even prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution. If they can eliminate the fact that there wasnota [natural born Citizen] in the U.S., because no one had been born in the U.S. to Citizen Parent, they in affect neutralize the unique clause of the qualification for the Office of the President by diluting it to "Citizen".
Of course this is plainly not the case or , the [Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution] would not have needed to be implemented at all. The Founders knew there had been many people who had been born in the geography of the New America since Columbus as he set foot in the Bahamas on October 11 1492 and moved his way up the New Continent.
To say there were not generations of people who were born on this new Continent by those who settled there is of course a denial of around 300 years, however unique to the formation of the United States is the American Nation formed by the United States of America. This is when the jurisdiction of and under of the U.S. Constitution began.
This is why the Founders of the U.S. Constitution stated they were effectively 'Adopted' Citizens in the statement of the President's Qualifications, [Or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution].
This gives a Time Frame of which "Citizens" first were considered such under the Jurisdiction of the new Supreme Law of the Land.
The continuation and continuity of that jurisdiction is understood in the phrase "natural born Citizen" which eliminated any foreign allegiance by birth or inheritance from mother or father. If a foreign birth or inheritance of a foreign citizenship or subject is known in an individual that does not preclude them from being a Citizen, but it does preclude them from being a [natural born Citizen] qualified for the Office of the President and even Vice President.
So in answering the question, "How did the early Founders consider themselves eligible for President under the Constitution's requirement of a 14 year Residency, we see they did that easily by not including the word Citizen but including the word RESIDENT only in the Office of the President.
The residency consideration being in the New America. This plainly enforces and substantiates that [natural born Citizens] did not exist prior to the U.S. Constitution and leaves us with an understanding that those fighting in the Revolution, even if they were born to parents who had immigrated to the new America did not consider themselves [natural born Citizens] and were in need of being Adopted under authority of the new U.S. Constitution as Citizens.
The 14 or so total comments total made in the Discussion are all valuable in their rebuttals and assertions of intelligence in the debate format that was being considered and are better reserved in context than simply listed here, but I'll go ahead and list them for convenience and for reference in a shorter format because wading through 135 other comments many that simply related great insult might not be your cup of tea.
I'll leave those at the bottom of this Post.
BIRTHERISM'S PIRATE OF PRINCIPLE
ABOARD A 100 MILLION DOLLAR SINKING SHIP
SO , How is former Florida Jeb Bush, absent from Governing and Political Office for the last 8 years, suddenly responsible for carrying the weight of the ESTABLISHMENT for the anti-establishment's wrath?
That is really a $100 Million Dollar Question! The answer is quite simply that instead of being his own man, Jeb Bush didn't stand up for Principle in the Constitution's demand for a [natural born Citizen] which would have most certainly garnered what is estimated to be 50% of Trump's base support, by at the very least taking a stand against Rubio as an ineligible Candidate for the Office of the President.
Jeb Bush is Jeb Bush's worst weakness because he's acting like a Pirate of the Principles established in and under our U.S. Constitution and by doing so he has allowed Rubio and Cruz under his blanket and they have like leaches sucked out the grass roots blood from his Campaign and are prepared to leave him for dead.
Of course Gov. Jeb Bush at the beginning of this Campaign never expected to be really challenged in the Campaign as he went for the money rather then Constitutional principles. A few television shows and speeches is really all Mr. Donald Trump needed to separate himself from the 'Establishment' word. He did that on The View, and everyone remembered.
Trump never filed a single paper in Court against Obama, and never gave $1 dollar of support to any Candidate for President who had standing and had filed in Court against Obama or McCain. Mr. Trump certainly hasn't filed a single paper in Court against Rubio, Cruz, or Jindal... ,and it may come back to be the worst mistake of his Political Career if Jeb Bush decided to.
Mr. Trump would be labeled the Fraud Birther and Mr. Bush would be labeled the Man who stood up for Principle instead of pirating it. Less than 100 days now exist before the Iowa Caucus and a 100 MILLION DOLLAR MAN ESTABLISHMENT MAN , is being shuffled off for a dead-on-arrival Iowa Caucus, while he has merrily merrily merrily merrily thought the Office of the President was available to any Dreamers.
Being angry is a secondary emotion, first comes hurt. Americans have been hurt by Obama's illegal occupancy of the White House. They have turned angry by Congress or shall we say any elected official using their bully pulpit to move Congress for Hearings on Obama's ineligibility due by the inherited citizenship of Kenya his father passed to Obama. People want to respect his mother's citizenship in the U.S. , but they want to disrespect Obama's father's Kenya Citizenship that Obama received at birth by Obama's own word and released long form birth certificate.
People want to assume Senator Cruz born outside the U.S. is qualified by his mother's U.S. Citizenship, if she didn't adopt a Canadian Citizenship like her husband did from Cuba to Canada. That is a respect of one parent's Citizenship and a disrespect for the other as equal in a child's inheritance.
It's U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's inheritance from Parents that at the time of his birth made him a first generation American by birth under the 14th Amendment's naturalization principles. Marco Rubio is what many Americans refer to as an Anchor Baby. That does not disqualify him from being a U.S. Senator as he was born here in America receiving his Citizenship jus soli or from the soil, understood under the 14th Amendment- " All those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States, and the State wherein they reside."
Clearly the 14th Amendment was not meant to intro-cede or void the qualifications of the Office of the President's 'natural born Citizen' clause, and those born are declared [Citizens], not ['natural born Citizens.']
Because neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are [natural born Citizens] ie. born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents- they are not eligible for the Office of President or Vice President and former Gov. Jeb Bush by not saying so has allowed the life blood line of his Campaign to be cut off with the tens of millions of dollars he has acquiesced by not taking a stand and doing what the President is suppose to even before he gets to Office of President, which is contained within the President's Oath, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
As a Candidate for President we have what is referred in legal terms to be 'standing' that no one else in America or in any other elected position has. That burden is a heavy one to bear even within one's one political party. I myself filed against both McCain and Obama in 2008 and 2012 making my LEGAL OBJECTIONS known and well understood. No other person has standing, and that is why it is such a heavy obligation to the Constitution immediately upon declaring for President.
Now if I was part of the $100 Million Dollar Club of Gov. Jeb Bush's, and I understood this, don't you think I would be calling him giving him a piece of my mind? I'd be saying Gov. Bush, you have STANDING! That is a responsibility and a duty to running for Office that I am not legally authorized to take. I support you because I have faith that you would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. If you can't do that, everything else I have invested in America is going to out in the manure spreader and I am really thinking you are not taking the job as a Candidate serious.
Then I'd probably say something like , you know that Mr. Cody Robert Judy had the courage to take a stand for the Constitution even against the powerful McCain and Obama Camps that were loaded for bear, and he was a nobody. Why don't you Gov. Bush have more courage than that no-body for our Constitution? Maybe if you did you wouldn't have put a tourniquet on the life blood source we call the grass roots of a Campaign and let Rubio and Cruz suck the life out of you after I contributed $100 MILLION DOLLARS to you!
Then I'd tell him he had about 5 days to change his mind about the U.S. Constitution and start acting like a President instead of just getting his picture taken. Now I don't expect Gov. Jeb Bush to do that, unless he decides to be his own man and buck the ESTABLISHMENTS bad wrap. But until he does he certainly deserves the label of being a Pirate of our U.S. Constitution's Principle for the Office of the President.
The Founders concerns, as the Judicial Committee's considerations bear out when in hearing to change the natural born Citizen clause in 2000 witness that a significant change takes place in a 2nd Generation American. The "Time" is the consideration in Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. It accounts for a longer period of time and is not discriminatory as a qualification for the Office of the President any more than being 35 years or older is to younger people.
It is my hope that all Candidates for President will take their obligations of Standing seriously and take the action within their own Parties to steer our Nation as a ship in a more true course for our Constitution realizing the great emotion born in the sacrifices of so many families to establish a land of the free and a home of the brave under the U.S. Constitution.
The greatest consideration in this is to assume for instance that if Hillary Clinton were to win her Parties Nomination, and lets say Rubio or Cruz won the GOP's Nomination and Rubio or Cruz won the General Election. Would Hillary Clinton ask for a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling making the Candidates Ineligible or even a Congressional Hearing. Will she be as gracious of a loser as Gov. Bush to Rubio or Cruz? In my opinion the answer is when the Presidency is on the line, you fight with every Constitutional Tool available and that tool would be available to her with Cruz or Rubio as a nominee. Of course the other thing you could do to make sure of is by electing me as the Democratic Party Nominee. I'd sure do it!
@RC [Thanks again Doc. Also thanks to Brian Reilly and CRJ who called. We went past the two hour streaming limit but the discussion should be in the archive version. We had a discussion with CRJ and about his case and the definition of NBC.]
It was a real pleasure to be in that Round Table Discussion agreeing to disagree.
As I thought about it this morning I appreciated you letting me come on the show. Things like that ROUND TABLE are EPIC and the Discussion Healthy.
Like Doc said about his experience in WOBC there was one point I regretted not saying as we disagreed on “Precedent Case”
And that would have been to emphasize more the reality that the SCOTUS has not had a Discussion on “natural born Citizen” where it Counts – Between TWO PRESIDENTIAL Candidates.
Thus our Campaigns are regulated by Cases considering “Citizen” and not “natural born Citizen”
I do wish the SCOTUS had enough respect for the Constitution to understand the slight. (smile)
You, Doc,Brian, and myself really engaged in a conversation that should be had in the U.S. Supreme Court and broadcast on Prime Time. . if you just for one minute thought about the hundreds of millions of Votes and Billions of dollars that have gone into the ’08. ’12., and now ’16 Presidential Elections. . that’s an easy up.
If the SCOTUS could not be juiced up by THAT I’d have to say they are in the same condition as the majority of Certs that hit their desk .. D.O.A or Deadlisted.
On a side note:
You and Doc are so talented with your voices. I mean REALLY good! Your both amazingly articulate, distinct, and unique and PRIME TIME is missing out.
Doc’s Voice could sell Beef to Cows. Sam Elliot better watch out , because he could lose his dinner over that voice.
You RC really should be MC’n Bloomberg TV or some other high profile show , with your quick wit, intelligence, and all around savvy.
REALLY was my honor in the Discussion with you guys and with Brian Reilly (who worked on the CCP). . whose sincere desire to look for truth I took as genuine.
You know I thought this morning “America’s Got GreatTalent”
Wouldn’t it be something if the best of the best in forensics, in Congress, in Court, in Politics, got together in Principle for the Truth?
Then I thought .., “Well, that was what the great experience and experiment the USA was all about in the first place with the Freedom and Liberty to do it. ”
You know TODAY that Round Table Discussion at Prime Time would cost millions of dollars. . and the Value would be exponentially higher.
I guess we missed the Pro Salary Cap, but it was a great Scrimage.
Comment 2
@Lupin – Do you know what GroupStink is? Try that question for $500.
@RealityCheck I’m doing a write up Post about the Show and would like to Credit You properly. Could you email me your Preferences and Credits cody@codyjudy.us
What do you get when the LEADING OBAMA CONSPIRACY DOCTOR, REALITY CHECK RADIO , A Former COLD CASE POSSE Investigator and a Presidential Candidate with U.S. Supreme Court Cases under his belt get together on a ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION?
WELL “Shake N Bake” , THAT just Happened!
I came on with a question for Doc Conspiracy (Kevin Davidson) at the 90 Minute Mark and the Show went into two 15 Minute OVER TIMES!
Comment 3
@Rickey AND Sen Ted Cruz (?)
The punitive factor of arguing for any particular Candidate is dismissive of the Principles of Law which we ought to be engaged in.
The dislocation of that lays bear the Constitutional Cupboard
Please Excuse Dis-location
I’ve been regulated to the “moderation” board, so I’m not sure if my comments “if approved” will fall in order.
But that might be due to the sensitive info of which that paticular comment had within it. Understandable.
Comment 4
@ REALITY [I believe it was Judy who thought that the failure to respond was tantamount to a default.]
One thing I’ve learned, always ask for everything. You never know what the Court is going to be in the mood to grant. You just might catch a Judge in a mood, but if you didn’t ask, there’s no way he’s/she’s gonna suggest it., FAULT ? YOURS.
To the questions directed towards my writing style-
One thing my Dad said about not writing me much before he passed away, was because he understood how easily things could be misconstrued, or taken out of context.
It is very True. One thing I could do, actually enjoyed doing was reading what I wrote in my Lions Den Show. I can verbally, with the right and correct verbal fluctuations, make it Understandable.
I do understand the problem, and concede it with out taking any offense at all. I do work on it everyday and consider corrections more helpful than ever are meant harmful.
Again time is a wrestling factor. In my college English and Writing I had A’s and B’s nothing lower. My accumlative GPA was 3.7 in College. .and with just two classes short of 3 minors and 1 major thats a lot classes.
More people… More time.. Things get better.
As an example I wholly got a kick out of the story or scene retold By Professional reporters as the Clerk walked outside with the BIG grey box full of copies of the SCOTUS Courts decision.
As you know there’s a literal SHOPPERS GRAB scramble to get a copy, read it, and report it FIRST.
Well, as long sentences go, and varying degrees and nuances are expressed all colesing around the action and subject, these Reporters just shook their heads at reading it and reporting it wrong, and then having to sit down re read, disect, and re evaluate the findings.
I understand no one likes reading something 10 times to understand it. The more you do it though the more understanding that comes.
Many people do not like or enjoy for example reading the Bible for various reasons. I’ve read it over 100 times and continue every day picking new things up in my understanding. Jesus often spoke in parables not to be seen as a smart A$s or vague, but as a tool of assistance. He was smart enough not to deny us the privilege of ah-hah moments when that understanding would come.
I appreciate all of the good humor here in all the comments, and hope to one day have you helping in a Judy Administration with your truly wonderful talents.
I’m really excited to have gotten to know each of you a little better, and I take your expressions and comments as really caring for me deep inside. I appreciate that. I do care about each of you also and wish you well.
Comment 5
@Lupin
Of course the term had some roots in Frenchs esteemed scholar Vattel
codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia “The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).
According to Chapter 19, §212 of “Law of Nations”, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. The concept “Natural born citizen” is a twofold criterion meaning that:
Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.
In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country.
Of interest and respect to your question without being redundant I have a more in depth analysis of the Discussion for your pleasure which includes many Constitutional scholars.
@Pete Well, appreciate that lengthy consideration. I know it takes time, and time is precious.
Now, in Discussion the semi-agreeable sorta.. Maybe.. We’re not sure item which is contrast:
Which Book, if it was a book would the Founders be more pleased to represent?
England’s Sir William Blackstone Justice of the Court of King’s Bench : writing on
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth – Chapter the Fifth : Of Offences Against the Law of Nations
Or
Emerich de Vattel -Swiss philosopher, diplomat, legal expert, author : The Law of Nations” (1758 Translate original French) noted to be influencer of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton
(?)
Lets see, at the TIME we had just gained our Independence with a very bloody war against England, and if my memory serves me correctly with gratitude towards the French Navy which blocked Cornwallis’s escape Yorktown 1781.
The U.S. Constitution ratification 1789
That’s like a far stretch pretty unlikely.
Certainly would notice my innitial word
[ The Law of Nations” (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source “Law of Nations” is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular – against piracies and felonies on high seas).] [Noted with] rather then the word [against]
I do apologize for my incorrect placement also for it reads [ To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas;
To establish Post Offices and post roads
To promote science
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization and uniform Laws
To coin Money
To declare War
To define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations
Etc Etc Etc
I mean I mixed the list up certainly to advocate a point. The importance of each on the list widely varies from the next, and so we can’t necessarily say as it correctly reads
[To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;].. Are meant to be birds connected together any more than War and The POST OFFICE or Science.
Of course in your argument the word “of” is missing, and the author is aligned with the enemy of the Revolution England.
In my argument there isn’t a single word missing, we have a friendly ally in French, and a well documented history of affinity with very notable U.S. Founders.
I think my evidence as assumptions still stand more clear in my heart, and the argument and evidence you’ve brought to show has not changed my mind respectfully.
Actually it would be quite old , you are right however about it not being new.
@ Pete [ Just because you say, “Well, it coulda been this way. It woulda been this way if I’d been there. It shoulda been this way, because this is what I think the Founders woulda wanted,” none of that makes it so] DITO
Of course I always turn what people say about me or to me and see if their own argument applies to them. Of course it usually does.
So, when I swear, and cuss, and disparage someone I go see how it holds up in the mirror saying it. LOL!
The key to Vattel is not to claim exact implications , but rather attribute influence. There ya go.
As I believe the Discussion started when I brought up Vattel, I was being lectured about reading history more and being educated by a lot of smart people. Apparently I went too far back for a degree of comfort.
@Pete [The birther goes out and searches diligently to see what few strands of straw he can find to beat against the granite rock of history,..]
The GRANITE ROCK of History as it pertains to the USA is of 43 Presidents everyone has been a (Citizen) at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, or a “natural born Citizen” (ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) according to Wikipedia. .accept Obama.
Recently, as my latest Post at the Blog related Arthur was found to be only a Citizen due to his father’s naturalization after Aurther’s 14th birthday. He was not re-elected, nor did he squire the Office without an assasination of President Garfield.
This makes Obama the sole elected Office of the President holder elected in violation of the traditions of U.S. History in the specifically outlined manner as criteria.
Now, what I will give you is I am a MUDDY Rucking Goldless Loser in many respects. I have nothing but mud on my bucket. That’s true. I havent won anything by the important Standards anyone here would really respect.
What I have WON is remarkable to me and more precious then the Gold and Pearl of Ophir; the fact I’m even around to convey it really is just as flabberghasting!
You all know I did 3018 days in Prison. You may not know 4.5 Of those years was in solitary isolation maximum security for standing up for and with the Native American’s Civil Rights to worship their God in appearance according to their Religion.
They had been kept in Solitary Confinement, some over a Decade!
I’ve often questioned “WHY” God would want me to plead “guilty” at first, but then just 3 days later Motion to Withdraw my guilty plea.
I know without a shadow of a doubt if I had fought the charges they would have crumbeled in a Public Trial. Religion has a BIG PART in Freedom of Speech. A central role.
Looking back if I asked myself a question of how you get in to a Prison without being part of the guilty my path was perfect.
Now why would anyone want to go to Prison?
Well, I didn’t know why God wanted me to go either. I had no juvenile or adult previous Criminal Record.
I appealed if course, and it was solely upon the LDS Bishop’s intrepation of Rule 11 that he denide the Motion I had to Appeal. I did that and also Appealed Discovery not being allowed the videotape of the whole thing to make Public. It was had by the Prosecutor and witnessed by the LDS Bishop/Federal District Court Judge.
Don’t expect you guys to know anything about that As you haven’t purchased my book Taking A Stand.
Anyway, the Court hid behind the LDS Church Presidencies Copyright of the Videotape. The evidense used at against me denide.
I was told I’d have To take the LDS Presidency to Court in a separate case to obtain it. I did… Clear to the SCOTUS.
TOOK quite a few years to do that. SCOTUS interestingly enough wrote me a letter after they Denied Cert. Said, we recognise your Case, but not enough people suffer not getting their evidence to take it up.
Meantime, I’d sued for Relief of Cruel and Unusual punishment on the basis of Not cutting my hair as a assist to the Native Americans. I didn’t use religion, but a discrimination of Gender defense. We won!
Amazing Day! To see those men walk out of Solitary Confinement after decades into General Population. Was I on an errand from God?
I do recall a humble prayer to God if there was anything I could do for my fellow man that no one else could, I would do it.
Be careful for what you pray huh?
What else was given to me that was so precious and valuable? What else have I WON?
I cannot imagine if I had been afforded every Constitutional CIVIL Right guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution ever doing 8+ years .
If I had NOT DONE 8 years , would there be a BI-Partisan Federal Court Record by a U.S. Presidential Candidate in the SCOTUS?
I can attest there would not be, nor would this conversion or discussion be happening.
It was ONLY through the PROFOUND LOSS that I came to WIN such a devotion, love, and Respect for the U.S. Constitution.
As I am the only Presidential Candidate with a specific Federal Court Record against Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama with great mentions of Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal within, there wouldn’t be a non-racial claim or a stain free Claim by anyone with standing.
I find offensive the claims of Principle to be denigrated to Racism, or Bigotry. They do not serve the True Record . . my Cases are very much considered as part of the Record.
No we haven’t WON a CASE. In that light it’s pretty dark indeed. It’s really pointless to say otherwise at this time other than Doc, I think you won the bet.
What I have WON is not truly understood by you Gentleman , I consider you as American Friends.
Side note @REALITYCHECK I really like the intro to your Radio show. The American song that plays is cool.
There are many Records kept by God. It’s understood by Christians I know that it is out of the Books that men shall be Judged.
When you think about ALL the Civilizations known to man, … Past & Present and you think of the Records of each civilization being their own history. That is Cannon.
Out of all that’s been written their are some Records esteemed much higher than others. Some are lost., some just forgotten.. Some kept up.. Some given as Witnesses.
This is all the Bible is.. A Record of the Jews. Falling away..being brought back in a Restoration. It’s a repeated story, one in which we to are living.
Good Day
Comment 8
@Rickey [ Yet no Democratic candidate argued that his father’s lack of citizenship made Obama ineligible, and in fact no Republican candidate made that claim, either.]
You qualify those who object to the R’s or D’s and seem to exclude Independents. This is certainly dismissive of Independents that now out number both.
Judy v. McCain included an EMERGENCY MOTION near the end of the Docket that submitted Berg v Obama SCOTUS Case. I was a I – Presidential Candidate at the time.
This birds been flying 6.5 years without a rest.. Lol.. Whew!
@Keith I certainly did not mean to say the Colonist were radically set to dispose of EVERYTHING English, including language or the few decencies the English may have picked up on in The Ten Commandments forming a common good. (smile)
That’s taking my suggestion and a sailing out on a limb for sure. Lol
Balance is Key GENTLEMAN.. and flailing about in extremist unbalanced curriculum is not my style, or tantamount to my suggestions with Pete in contrasting two Printed works. One he suggested and one I suggested, which is on record from multiple sources as having “influence” on the Founders as a great assistance. Noted with Vattell I brought up.
I’m sure Blackstone’s work did also as well the 10 Commandments and The Holy Bible which of course does not directly infer any particular religion.
I believe Vattell did write exactly what I inferred he wrote. It seems the opposite is the nature of Pete’s argument.
@Doc I noticed on the Wiki Entry of Arthur they have his father as a U.S. Citizen and not a foreigner. This then places Obama alone.
It really was my extended research on Arthur that lent the 2008 revelation that popped up his father had not naturalized. I would hardly call a recent discovery precedent for Obama. Re: my latest Blog entry http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
Truly, according to U.S. History Obama is the only one without credentials under the Conditional Authority of “Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of the U.S. Constitution (the same as Representatives and Senators qualification ) and “natural born Citizen” ie Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents after.
The 8 attempts to change “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents” to other conditions by Congress since 2003 are strong evidence towards legal reason substantiating this parameter for [natural born Citizen].
The failure of all 8 would be considered a Continued Legislative Mandate for the Judicial Branch to uphold as Constitutional.
Of course the [two citizen Parents] cannot be under estimated in current all be it non binding U.S. Resolution 511 As a remarkable as well modern consideration of Legislation many here fail to include OBAMA himself as a U.S. Senator co- sponsored.
This indicates Obama himself would and did outlaw himself with one U.S. Citizen Parent from the Office of the President in the qualification of [natural born Citizen] under its conditions and justifications excluding “place” in particular circumstances.
@ Doc [ Your hopeless ] I don’t believe so Doc , I tell you I have lots of Hope. But I may indeed be hopeless to avoiding the Facts I bring to the table. I see no reason to abandon them . THEY are FACTS.
Comment 9
Great Example here of Law depicting [Citizen] not [ natural born Citizen] as lawful intrpretation.
The following shall be nationals and [citizens] of the United States at birth: … outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, … 477, title III, ch. … L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth …
Cornell University
It’s a Congress Act ALIENS & NATIONALS which depicts a lawful naturalization a-h none of which include [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]
Why?
Because [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – there was no need to naturalize. It was a given. It was clearly understood. It was stable. It was common knowledge.
It’s remarkable that the reverse has happened.
When the undefined, but understood , becomes that which is said to be ridiculous or insubstantial in court.
Great Example comes to mind for clarity of what I’m saying. In the movie A FEW GOOD MEN Tom Cruise playing Lt. McCaffee question a Infantryman –
Q.”Can you tell me what page the directions are in the Marine Manual to the Mass Hall? ”
“A.”ummm there isn’t one.”
Q. ” YOU mean you have never had a meal?”
A. “No, I’ve eaten every meal.”
Q. ” How did you know where the Mass Hall was if it’s not in the Manuel?”
Code Red not found in the Manuel is like ( [ natural born Citizen – born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) or finding the Chow Hall.
Minor v. Happerset simple stated the obvious in saying it was never doubted that those born in the Country to Citizen Parents were themselves natural born citizens.
Comment 10
The distinction of separate terms occurs in one paragraph.
[ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United Stated , at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]
We notice it was impossible for a single person to be [natural born Citizen] Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents because the United States didnt exist until the LAW of Authority in Constitution was signed as Supreme Law.
This made all those at the time [Citizens] of a New Nation.
Congress was given naturalization powers to adopt Citizens.
Anyone born of Citizens in the U.S were [natural born Citizens] under constant jurisdiction of the same law
The term [natural born Citizen] was considered a WALL to foreigners. .and aliens and nationals adopted as Citizens by naturalization or any process of Government are considered Foreigners to that Office of President.
It’s the only thing that preserves the intent of national security, and gives reason the same qualification was not intended for Representatives and Senators.
(Chief Justice) John Jay to (Pres) George Washington
[Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.]
Aliens and Nationals are considered adopted by some naturalization process including declarative Congressional Act or Title X a-h which is necessary for entitlement justification.
Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents is not listed in TITLE X but we get entitlements. .because it was never doubted.
Sadly, the twisting and contortions have failed the most basic fundamental truths on some lawyers profound new truth that of its not listed it isn’t. That’s just poppy cock reasoning and voids deductive reasoning we are all very capable of.
Comment 11
@arthur Perhaps you could point out the case of 2 Presidential Candidates, one stating damages to his Campaign with Standing that has occured in the U.S. Supreme Court over the specific [ natural born Citizen] clause unique to the qualification of the Office of President in the U.S. Constitution?
Actually Heard by SCOTUS in History?
If you can’t we must assume it’s pretty recent the shift took place as consideration.
Judy v. Obama 14-9396 gave us as close of an encounter as we have had.
By your standard there should be no hurdle of the Political Doctrine Question or Ripeness Doctrine
Can you recall such a time in History that an all OUT assault on the prohibition of Constitution construction took place?
Comment 12
@Soduko [The courts have consistently held there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born or naturalized. There is no third category of a citizen at birth, by virtue of being born in the US, who is not a natural born citizen.]
Certainly those born in the U.S. qualifying as anchor babies under the NATURALIZED Clause of the 14th amendment would be also understood As naturalized by an Act of Congress.
No one part of the Constitution can void another. Both terms Respected.
The 14thAMEND did not void a qualification for President in Art 2, Sect 1, C-5.
In question of how did President Washington fullfill 14 Year RESIDENCY requirement?
Noticing the difference between being a [Citizen] for 14 years verses a [Resident] for 14 years is verily clear to me.
The Residency requirement did not require that to be as a Citizen, but a Resident.
One could fullfill the “14 Year Residency” by being a [R]esident in the Geography prior to bring a Citizen at the Adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the United States.
That is why the Constitution does NOT say and [14 years a Citizen of the United States] for the Office of President.
Now if you Notice this is very different from the Representative Requirements which in fact do say :
[seven Years a Citizen of the United States]
and also see U.S Senator
[nine Years a Citizen of the United States]
Virginia actually was the 10th State to come into the the Union, but did so in 1788 a Year after 1787 signing of the COTUS.
So again, very clearly, the Office the President did not require a [14 year prior Citizenship] but clearly states [14 years a Resident within the United States]
And The first [Citizen] (s) were Adopted at the signing of the Constitution. We all agree Obama was not there.
[Citizen] was the requirement, because they ALL KNEW, (what many here have failed to either understand, or just blantantly want to stay or be ignorant about), there was no [ natural born Citizens]
Natural born Citizen required Birth in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Those first generation Adopted U.S. Citizens had children who were the [natural born Citizens] qualified for the Office of President.
It’s the [Supreme Law of the Land] , not racist. It’s WE THE PEOPLE’S [w]ill by Legislative Mandate, not a wipple of any particular minority.
Comment 14
@Gorfan [W]as it ratified by the Particular State?
There have been Congress People in the U.S. Congress that have proposed 8 times to change the [natural born Citizen] clause understanding [born in the U.S to Citizen Parents] to something else. They all failed to pass.
The point being just because it’s proposed certainly does not mean ratified. Legislation has been proposed in AZ that would make what Obama did a little less likely to occur. The Gov. Vetoed it.
@Lupin & @Ron Even if Trumps mother was “dual” he was born to U.S. Citizens this making him a [natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Obama’s father was not a dual citizen he was Kenyan and didn’t even try to be immigrate or naturalize. We should respect Obama’s father’s heritage equally in consideration Obama inherited such Kenyan Citizenship from his father.
To not RESPECT Obama’s father equally is rather racist in my opinion.
@Magic M Thank you for your support in stating that. Indeed.
Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.
Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!
Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!
Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.
1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396
Other Courts
12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin
The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.
Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President
to Vattel is not to claim exact implications , but rather attribute influence. There ya go.
