Posted on 08/18/2014 6:00:08 AM PDT by Ray76
The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases.
Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.
Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury – the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
sorry I’ve done that years ago and don’t have time to do it again right now if I get time I will and ping you...
Thank you. I believe I’ve read elsewhere that it wouldn’t pertain in this case as well, but never with any source material.
Per Thomas, they have knowingly and purposefully "evaded" the previous cases. IOW, they know he's ineligible and don't want to go there.
Zimmerman and Officer Wilson were both injured by obola’s pressers whining about his sons.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html
main thing I see is tha Obama’s eligibility has been challenged since before he took office and continued challenges to date..never been decided..it would be adjudicated on a case by case basis...
Thanks.
Well, there's no way he's going to get his money back if that's what you're asking. Even if the case somehow led to Obama being found ineligible to be president.
From the link:
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
The defect of ineligibility of this usurping Kenyan commie has been known by the human half of of the public since, at the latest, summer of 2008.
The defect or irregularity in its exercise has been known by the human half of the public since the disclosure of Pelosi's dual certifications was circulated in 2009.
Yes, I’d agree that Obama’s “defect” has been at least suspected and not sufficiently demonstrated otherwise all along.
But as rolling_stone has pointed out, with a link, there has apparently been a doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court that still makes the act of such an illegitimate officeholder legitimate.
Damn. You buzz killer! LOL.
If you look back at my post, you'll see that I also posted the same link.
The part I put in bold as follows:
such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
The difference is between "unknown to the public, therefore not protested by the public" and "known to the public, protested by the public, but the ineligible office-holder refused to step aside and quit pretending to be legitimate".
Nothing this bastard has done is legitimate.
And it isn't an exaggeration to say hundreds or perhaps thousands of others are involved: Pelosi, Congress on both sides, the DNC, Hawaiian officials, SSA, doctors, immigration, university administrations, ad nauseum ad nauseum. This rotting can of worms is bigger than the Capitol building. I don't believe the truth will be allowed out in my lifetime.
...... We therefore hold that the Court of Military Appeals erred in according de facto validity to the actions of the civilian judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Petitioner is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel of that court. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion......
they denied defacto officer doctrine
I suspect this will be thrown out because the amount in controversy does not reach the threshold of the requirement in Federal Courts that the amount in controversy must be at least $75,000.
The validity of the amount of damages claimed is considered a threshold issue of law for a judge to decide at the commencement of the case.
The Supremes aren’t going to be drawn in to this matter by a $90 claim which is an obvious subterfuge to gain standing.
That amount applies when the parties are from different states. Federal questions have no such limitation.
IANAL
Is the patent guy from Hawaii? If this comes down to jurisdictional issues, won’t the amount be important.
I still think they’ll consider this $90 a subterfuge and find a way to avoid taking the case.
This matter will fracture the country, no matter which way a court rules, and they will run away from it.
USPTO is a federal agency
He’s not suing a Federal agency. He’s suing over a law which Obama signed as President.
I’m sure the attorneys involved have lots of experience, but the Supremes do as well and are sneakier when they want to arrive at a pre-determined outcome—in this case, not touching the natural born citizen issue with a ten foot pole.
we’ll see, and I hope I’m wrong.
He is suing an agency for a refund of fees. He claims the fee is illegal because Obama does not have the authority to sign a bill into law because he is not a natural born citizen.
Rudy has suffered a particularized injury. All he wants is his money back. The issue is justiciable and requires adjudication to prevent repeat occurrence.
SCOTUS recently ruled that an order of the National Labor Relations Board was invalid because its members were appointed by Obama in an unconstitutional manner.
If Obama has office in an unconstitutional manner then his actions are invalid too.
Rudy has been injured. It will be interesting to see how they worm out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.