supreme (28)

9th Circuit's Judicial Tyranny

Let me be as crystal-clear as I can be. Madison and Jefferson–and even super-nationalist Hamilton– warned us against an unregulated judiciary.

Per the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, Trump’s within his constitutional authority to IGNORE lawless judicial “rulings”. This also extends to constitutional Congressional acts somehow divinely deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional. 

We have forgotten that court rulings are NOT enforceable rulings or law. They are unenforceable OPINIONS, and nothing more. Their opinions don’t have the force of law, but of “moral authority”. Drill that paragraph into your head.

In short, since officers in each branch of the federal government take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, by these officers’ permitting unconstitutional judicial opinions to be treated as law they are VIOLATING their oaths of office.

Trump should have the moral clarity to nullify/ignore judicial rulings/opinions which are, like the 9th circuit’s recent “ruling”, blatantly lawless usurpations of the Constitution and of Executive authority.

People, read Art III and Article VI para 2 of the Constitution.The supreme law of the land are NOT the presumably divine pronouncements of the federal judiciary, but the CONSTITUTION itself. And until we understand this, judicial tyranny will continue.

As for me, I don’t want a gaggle of unelected, entirely mortal, corruptible, black-robed unaccountable jurists to continue ruling our country and our lives.

The final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional are We the People, and that’s precisely how our founders saw it. If we continue to permit judicial tyranny to rule our lives we are unwitting–or willing–agents of our republic’s self-destruction.

Finally, it is well past time to initiate an amendment to tighten up restrictions on the judiciary by returning the federal judiciary, top to bottom, to its original role as clearly expressed by our founders. But, first, we must all READ THE CONSTITUTION and the words of Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson–not revisionist case law which has served only to subvert original intent and meaning.

Until we get this right, this republic remains but a fiction.

Read more…

Below is an edited personal Op Ed first published on March 31, 2008.

 

November 15, 2015

Protect our Electoral College inside our US Constitution

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

America, please listen carefully! Do not allow any of our elected politicians on Capitol Hill or anywhere else in America to tamper with and/or destroy our Electoral College as our process of electing our President and Vice President of our United States. Our current electoral process is sacred. Our Electoral System is not broken, or for that matter, not even stretched, except for those who may hate America and choose to break our Electoral College system and/or our Democratic Republic system of government.

 

There are some elected left-wing Liberals on Capitol Hill who are now starting the process to introduce and ratify legislation of eliminating the Electoral College process and of altering our election of our President and Vice President of our United States. Unfortunately, there are a few elected left-wing radicals who hate America and desire to destroy our Democratic Republic system of government. Recent reports now show three (3) Congressmen visited Iraq in October, 2002, at the request and expense of now deposed, convicted of war crimes, and executed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. What would George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, James McHenry, James Madison, or James Wilson, the Electoral College presenter, or so many others say to these current members in Congress and/or these currently proposed changes to our US Constitution and its’ potential corruptive changes? What about John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams, John Adams, or any of our other authors? God Bless our forefathers’ leadership, their insights, their Wisdoms!

 

It is for certain our forefather authors of our US Constitution discussed the ideas of voters’ corruption and other corrupt ideas which could lead to a near never ending of counting and/or recounting votes for the President and Vice President. Over the years, we have so much history of alleged voter fraud.

 

Under our current Electoral College, voter fraud usually can he dealt with in a local precinct, local county, or at worst, in a single state, rather than by so many multiple precincts, counties, and/or states. Eliminating the Electoral College and changing to a total plurality vote could throw the electing of our President and Vice President into an election chaos all throughout America. The Electoral College nearly eliminates multiple corrupt precincts, counties, and/or states from perhaps, changing the final entire election results for President and Vice President of the United States after an extended term in our State and Federal Judiciary.

 

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to foresee the importance of an Electoral College system which may prevent corruption from destroying the entire election process in the Executive Branch as the President and Vice President of our United States.

 

Our forefathers set up the Electoral College system to give each state representation based for one vote for each of the two US Senators and one vote for each of its respective members of the US House of Representatives (Congress), based on their population in their respective states.

 

In general, for example, if there were a 304,000,000 population within the US, and with our current fifty (50) States, each state would be allocated two (2) votes as each of our fifty (50) states have two (2) US Senators. One (1) vote for each 698,851 population persons will equally represent one (1) representative for each of our 435 members of the Congress.

 

With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, Electoral College votes are, by each voting state, winner take all. In Maine and Nebraska, the winning candidates as President and Vice President get the two (2) Electoral College votes as US Senators, and as each of their respective state’s total vote. Each Congressional District Electoral College vote is given to the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidate winning their respective Congressional District total votes.

 

Wyoming, the lowest in population (estimated at some 568,000), is the exception as each state has at least one (1) member vote in the US Congress. California is the largest in population with an estimated 36,500,000 people and which has 53 members in the US Congress.

 

Under a new system of electing the President and Vice President, based on a total majority votes system all over the United States, could lead to perhaps the smallest community in the US, by a very small amount of fraud, lead to corruption which may lead to counting and/or recounting votes in each and every precinct, in each and every county, and in each and every state, just to substantiate the official results.

 

Changes in eliminating the Electoral College for local corruption may not even change any local, district, and/or state elections; only the election for President and Vice President of the United States. The States’ and the Federal Judiciary could become overwhelmed with a newer election process. We do not need any additional legal fights throughout our entire stretched out Judicial system all over America!

 

The Electoral College process for electing our President and Vice President of our United States must be protected for our free Democratic Republic system of government. History proves our electoral system is unquestionably the very best.

 

For all who would choose to destroy our Electoral College process of electing our US President and Vice President, “JUST SAY NO”! Those who force their efforts to change our Electoral College should and must be replaced, themselves, by election.

 

Our Electoral College has worked exceptionally well for more than two hundred (200) years. There is no need to enter into more additional voters’ corruption. Capitol Hill representatives already have more than their own share of corruption on Capitol Hill. Changing the Electoral College is equivalent to initiating a political earthquake, a hurricane, and/or a tornado combined while Americans lose their individual voting freedoms. We must save America and our Electoral College.

 

God Bless America!

Read more…

I am eager to meet and greet all who can help me [ and helping them in return] in assisting me next Nov, for my run in the 37th District NJ for State Rep. Last week at the Teaneck meeting I heard the story of that young man [Brian Aitken] that was arrested for having registed guns in the trunk of his car. Well, what Mr. Aitken, should have communicated to the Police Officer that , he would be willing to open his trunk , without a warrant , But, Thomas,would be very sad and maybe angry if he did that , and also maybe John and James . And I would not want to see tears in their eyes. And when the Police Officer asked, " who is Thomas , James and "this John" ?. Well , I would have said, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adam and Mr Madison. You see Officer, Thousands of "young" men and women shed their Red American blood , so we would be able to have a "Bill of Rights".See Officer, Its not me that is refusing you to open my trunk [without a warrant] its our Founding Fathers, asking me from the great beyond to deny you that intrusive illegal request , without a warrant. Furthermore, I will wait anywhere you wish, here , in Jail, until you get that warrant ..... From my study of the legal system, the Officer had no "standing" to get a warrant, and if he did , the evidence, ( the legal guns in trunk) would have been suppressed, the fruit of the poison tree. So Please, fellow Tea Party Members, don't let the Government , State /Federal/ Municipal step on our Rights , if you are in doubt , put the blame on the "Founding Fathers" and say NO!!!!! to any [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] Intrusion by Government officials.

GOD BLESS AND SAVE AMERICA

Read more…

I am eager to meet and greet all who can help me [ and helping them in return] in assisting me next Nov, for my run in the 37th District NJ for State Rep. Last week at the Teaneck meeting I heard the story of that young man [Brian Aitken] that was arrested for having registed guns in the trunk of his car. Well, what Mr. Aitken, should have communicated to the Police Officer that , he would be willing to open his trunk , without a warrant , But, Thomas,would be very sad and maybe angry if he did that , and also maybe John and James . And I would not want to see tears in their eyes. And when the Police Officer asked, " who is Thomas , James and "this John" ?. Well , I would have said, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adam and Mr Madison. You see Officer, Thousands of "young" men and women shed their Red American blood , so we would be able to have a "Bill of Rights".See Officer, Its not me that is refusing you to open my trunk [without a warrant] its our Founding Fathers, asking me from the great beyond to deny you that intrusive illegal request , without a warrant. Furthermore, I will wait anywhere you wish, here , in Jail, until you get that warrant ..... From my study of the legal system, the Officer had no "standing" to get a warrant, and if he did , the evidence, ( the legal guns in trunk) would have been suppressed, the fruit of the poison tree. So Please, fellow Tea Party Members, don't let the Government , State /Federal/ Municipal step on our Rights , if you are in doubt , put the blame on the "Founding Fathers" and say NO!!!!! to any [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] Intrusion by Government officials.

GOD BLESS AND SAVE AMERICA

Read more…

POWER ( OF ) THE PEOPLE

STOP TWIDDLING YOUR THUMBS

4063948263?profile=original

 

     We are the people of the United States.    WE are the power, and when it gets to the point of where our country is now,  after decades of plotting and planning against us by our own elected officials, and the POWERS THAT BE behind the scenes,  we are left with no choice but to LITERALLY THROW THESE BUMS OUT...

     You have to realize that this has NOTHING to do with being a Democrat or Republican,  it's about DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

     What makes me nuts is that THESE SCUMS that are in Washington think THEY KNOW BETTER than the U.S. Constitution.   YEAH,  the same Constitution that allowed them to get elected.  The same Constitution that THEY SWEAR ON THEIR LIVES with hands on the bible that they will uphold, and defend against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.

     THE MINUTE YOU DEVIATE FROM THE PLAN,  the plan falls apart.  And what we wind up with is the friggin MESS that we have across this country right now.

     Obama is a complete disgrace.  He's SNEAKY, AND A LYING UNQUALIFIED BOOB

     And for those of you that think i'm picking on Democrats, GROW UP  cause George W Bush, and his loser old man GEORGE H W BUSH are no better than OBAMA.  They're all feathers of the same dead bird.

     THERE IS A  ( MAJOR ) LAWSUIT that's been created by the PEOPLE and what we hope is that we can get the support of all the Tea Partiers out there.

     PEOPLE / TAXPAYERS OF THE U.S.A. ( V ) THE GOVERNMENT & CONGRESS ET AL and this includes over 40 co defendants from Obama to Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, Congress, Eric Holder, and all the rest of the losers that have TRASHED this country and CONTINUE to do so at the expense of all of us.  

     This is about to be filed with the U.S. SUPREME COURT in Washington DC and we need your support.  

     This has taken TWO YEARS to create and with exhibits exceeds 1000 pages, and once you start reading it, you won't be able to put it down.    IT WILL shock you with details, and information that will make your stomach turn, and make your soul catch fire.

     Let us know that we have your support.   GET A COPY of the lawsuit FOR FREE

 

 

     

Read more…
Can Local Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Gun Control Laws?

The short answer to the question in the title of this missive is yes. Let us look at how I arrived at this.
     We start with a quote from the Federalist Papers specifically No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
     Further in the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
     Far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.
     Want more corroboration? OK. Back we go to the Federalist Papers. Remember the Federalist papers were written by the people who drafted the Constitution and were published to aid in letting the people know what that Constitution would mean to them. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers (#78): There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”
     If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.(The emphasis is mine) (end of quote)
     Even if the Constitution of the United States is ignored by our legislators, these sheriffs have the constitutional and oath driven obligations to take a stand and follow the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court. If it is an unconstitutional law, it has no affect on the citizenry and should not be enforced; not by local sheriffs or police – not by the FBI nor the NSA. It certainly should not be adhered to by any citizen.

Read more…

MoveOn.org – George Soros’s propaganda arm – is worried about conservative legislatures passing discriminatory voting laws. Soooo, they go on and say they’ve been prepping for such a happening – by voter suppression!

They say –

“Today's ruling clears the way for states with conservative legislatures to implement whatever voting laws they want. And it gives power to Congress to determine what, if any, states should now be covered by the VRA.

This was right-wing judicial activism at its worst. But MoveOn members represent grassroots activism at its best.

The Supreme Court is opening the floodgates to a wave of conservative organizing to pass discriminatory laws state by state. This is the type of battle we've been prepping for. We've spent the last six months experimenting with new ways for MoveOn members to have a huge impact on state issues—and voter suppression is one of them.

If we can raise $150,000 in the next 24 hours, we'll go all-in to stop the Court's decision from stealing elections and stripping the right to vote from millions of Americans.

Can you chip in $5 to support new member-led campaigns to protect the right to vote?”

So you see folks, MoveOn.org wants to “protect the right to vote.” Their tactic to protect that right is “voter suppression!”

No wonder “progressives” all seem to be clones of crazy Nancy Pelosi!

Liberals, come home to America. The ”progressives” have sold us all out.

Read more…

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman for life.  The way a man and woman's body are formed is evidence of this natural union (versus unnatural unions).  Everything else is not a real marriage but instead a civil union or some other term offerring protection under the law.  The Obama administration in trying to slam dunk this issue in the Supreme Court to force Virginia and most other States to strike down their own marriage legislation and it is the highest assault an administration has ever made on America and the Church. 

Focus on the Family Story

Marriage is sacred in the Church and Obama's actions are harming the civil rights of one class of people while advancing his agenda for another (win-lose) while the right thing to do is win-win where marriage remains between a man and a woman and civil unions cover everything else.  Quite frankly I am ashamed of Obama and pray for the day his remaining term is over for the sake of a once great nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all (win-win). rz

Read more…

4063669574?profile=originalBlack Conservatives  rally against Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

(click to read more )

Read more…

4063664531?profile=original            America’s Abortion may end with North Dakota Personhood Law

History may mark February 7th as the day that Personhood for the unborn was established. This is the day that provided the unborn at conception the God given right to life bestowed upon all since the beginning of creation. This is a significant step in the continuing evolution of sanctioning the protection of life which has been riddled by abortion rights activists since the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Forty years and 55 million plus deaths of the unborn who committed no crime except to be conceived in God’s image were murdered. This was accomplished because of a court and society that would protect a tree frog’s existence above a human life. These murders may soon be put to a stop with the North Dakota Personhood Measure that passed in the State Senate. When it is established that a fetus has U.S. 14th Amendment constitutional protection, abortion ends in America!

Often times in the history of monumental movements, they often have their genesis in the hearts and souls of the faithful who are unwilling to witness or permit the undoing of basic rights. The aptly named Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative would codify the constitutional protections and absolute rights afforded all citizens of North Dakota and equally apply them to human embryos.

This is not just a momentary battle that supporters of life will wait to see what will happen in North Dakota’s House. The fact is that, in North Dakota as well as other states that are considering Personhood laws; the war for life should and can be won on the local battleground of state turf. These legislators, unlike their federal congressional counterparts, are not afraid to stand up to protect their religious values and principles, under the heat of unceasing liberal mass media contempt.

At the very core of the right to life is the imbalance that exists in continuing to treat the right to exist and to be born as incidental and given no more value than extinguishing the life of a common earth worm. The rights of the mother is given weight not as the carrier of life, but the right to her privacy to do as she pleases, which includes state sanctioned murder.

Yet for forty years the growing tearful cries of fathers who will never be, and mothers who are now filled with regret because of abortion. Their mournful regret is coupled with birthrights of the unborn, sheered away by abortion clinics.

( click to read more )

Read more…

4063598476?profile=originalIf a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. So why are black supporters of Affirmative Action letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Race based affirmative action may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities? ( Read More )

Read more…

Charlie, We'd like to Report "Your Fired"

 
4063579956?profile=original
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
 
 
Charlie, We'd like to Report "Your Fired"
 
 

Here we thought you were interested in reporting news Charlie. We've contacted your publisher/editor and informed them of your rude discourtesy at receiving press releases. 

 
 
      Dear Ogden Standard Examiner Editor-In-Chief:
 
           We have received the following email from Charlie Pomerleau and would like to report it as a discourtesy, not simply to the Campaign, but to the subscribers and readers of the Ogden Standard Examiner.
 
            Mr. Pomerleau has been a reporter for political events like "Occupy" and other political active events here in Utah, and it is frankly surprising to us here at the Campaign to find such a bias in the reporting atmosphere at the Ogden Standard Examiner.
 
            Our Press Releases are a matter of public notices as Mr. Judy is a registered candidate in the Federal Election Commission record, and he has also taken Barack Obama clear to the United States Supreme Court case no Judy v. Obama 12-5276, and this is not simply the assertion of Mr. Judy, but the conviction of thousands of hours of law enforcement personal, that Mr. Pomerleau has referred as a "rant".
 
            We would like an apology from Mr. Pomerleau, or we will consider publicly protesting the Ogden Standard Examiner in front of the community as endorsing and fully representative of Mr. Pomerleau's comments, and position on "the news" that's reported.
 
 
            If this is the position of the Ogden Standard Examiner, we would not expect any reply. In the National News it is worth a mention that the Ogden Standard Examiner is "receiving" the news from reporters afar. 
 
1-

Latest News

 
 
Oh look, story number 5 an actual Standard Examiner reporter, and we also notice 6 simply to highlight preceptable 'rants' as actually report able assuming at least a kernel of truth in Mr. Pomerleau's professional insult. Thank goodness for Becky Wright's concern over Utah's past time Mardi Gras, "barely registers in the history books". In real time comparison a Ogden Utah Candidate for U.S. President in the Democratic Party, has the man in the White House on record as ineligible with the results of a full law enforcement investigation included. 
 
In fact as we scan popular stories from the Ogden Standard Examiner we see barely a glimpse of Obama criticism. Even for a Republican State reporting unbiased news that seems a little strange. 
 
While the watch-dog for the Public may be concerned with an actual authority to report Obama's fraud and forgery presented to the public out of the White House Press Room, his fabricated selective service card, his total non-transparency on college transcripts and registration profile we assume based on his foreign student gifts from the U.S., his law licence being stripped based on his failure to report going under any other name, and his social security card number not even passing e-verify, (also a big problem for other illegals using forged birth certificates, we have to wonder why exactly the law requires any age restriction on a drivers licence, or entry into a bar, for all must similarly be dismissed to allow the same rules Obama is playing by under the Constitution), ultimately a simple report to the The People, might be a place to start.
 

Popular Stories

As we assume frankly the Ogden Standard Examiner is remiss to report anything remotely 'national' that doesn't come from Washington DC, we simply can think of no better excoriation than to public transfer this report to every possible colleague of Mr. Pomerleau, as the definitive definition of a lame reporter using his own rant's to define the public news.
 
While it might be an easier story to sell of a disgruntled political loser whose crying because the media won't report a case in the United States Supreme Court against the occupant of the White House, ... wait a minute... disgruntled political losers don't get to the United States Supreme Court. Call up any attorney and ask them what it cost to take a case from ground zero to the United States Supreme Court, then do a detailed analysis of every republican candidate's expenses from the time they entered the presidential race to the time they ended it. 
 
Now consider the time necessary to create some 180 Commercials and a 500 page blog that you don't get paid for, all while maintaining your bills and you might come up with a simple dedication to the public trust, our Country and Constitution, that has motivated Cody Robert Judy. If that kind of dedication, tenaciousness, and courage against all odds is simply deserving of no more than a dismissive rant, it seems the real friends to the Country and the Constitution must be parked in some unreported battle giving their life's in a raging war also. God forbid that's your son or daughter.
 
Mr. Judy said, " You know I myself did not expect to still be in the Presidential Race in September of 2012 when we entered a week before Republican Gov. Rick Perry which I believe was Aug 13,2011. Its been an unbelievable test of grit working through the Courts on this very important issue of Obama's eligibility. The whole State of Kansas is seriously considering taking Obama off the ballot, it just seems the general population is just catching on but we started this defensive fight the first round in the New Hampshire Primary and then worked into Georgia both states going to the Supreme Courts. Ultimately we do believe the U.S. Constitution is the hallmark of the United States Supreme Court it just takes time to get there, but we did it and did so before the general election. I'm so unbelievably proud of every person and contributor that helped us get here. It wasn't done with big PACs or corporations, this is politics at the Mom and Pop stage and I can think of no better claim or compliment for America in general."
 
Charlie- We'd like to report three things to you 1) Your fired. 2) This blog has sold over 50,000 newspapers , http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/09/could-sept-24th-in-scotus-be-obamas-d.html , not bad for a city like Ogden, Utah. 3) of course we've reported it to far more.  We look forward to Washington DC reporting the news to you after Sept. 24th, 2012, at which time you'll look even more ridiculous then you already do for not informing the General Public of the story handed to you. . Of course, that's a bet we know your willing to take and its one we've put far more time and money in than you, so you shouldn't have to worry about your losses?
 
While we're no fan of Mitt Romney and have highlighted his lack of courage for the eligibility issue we consider to be a national security issue and a direct link to our slagged economy, with friends like this we don't think Mitt Romney needs enemies.
 
 
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Staff Report



 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:01:39 -0600
 From: cpomerleau@standard.net
 To: codyjudy@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: The Dark Days of America's Scammers in Presidential Politics

 Please unsubscribe me from your rants. I don't care to receive your material.

http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-dark-days-of-americas-scammers-in.html
 
 
 
 
Read more…
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
             and
 
4063558869?profile=original
Obama 2016 - The 'ACTION' of 'INACTION' Obama Voting Present
 
As an Illinois Senator Obama voted 'present' effectively side-stepping a "Ayes" or "Nays" vote some one hundred and thirty times in order to stay in the good graces of his constituents and his future political career which was, make no mistake, orchestrated.
 
 
Obama is also M.I.A as a constitutionally qualified president. Obama is not a natural born citizen which has been been interpreted by the Congress as a legislative mandate over 225 years, born in the United States to Citizen parents on the record by literally examining the fact that its never been over turned in our history while its been attempted over 24 times.
One thing most people agree on is that the purpose of the 'natural born citizen' clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Americans hold the work of the Founding Fathers in such reverence that they've added to it only 17 times since 1791.
 
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a Judiciary committee member, sees merit in the restriction and said in 2004, "I don't think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen," she said at the hearing. "Your allegiance is driven by your birth."
Republican U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch-R from Utah said in October 2004,"The restriction on the foreign-born "has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American."
Maria Shriver Kennedy at one time supported her husband Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow the Austrian-born 2004 California governor to run for the White House as soon as 2008.
 
 
As we see UT. R. Sen Orrin Hatch's proposed amendment failed in 2004, Maria (Kennedy) Shriver filed divorce to Schwarzenegger in 2011 for infidelity but as of July 2012 the divorce isn't final, and another 2008 candidate who isn't a natural born citizen duped Americans running and successfully usurped the White House in 2008.
 
 
If you haven't seen the conservative documentary of the decade stunning Hollywood Obama's present from Rocky Mountain Pictures, "Obama 2016", you need to go see it. I took my mother this last Friday even as the hour and twenty-nine minute documentary was expanding from its modest handful of movie screens to 1,900 screens nation wide earning another $5.1 million of its now 18.3 million.
Its an interesting side-note that Michael Moore producer of No. 1-ranked "Fahrenheit 9/ 11," which topped $119 million leading documentaries all time, this last week told Democrats to get used to the words "President Romney".
 
 
The foreboding feeling you feel walking out of Obama 2016 with the audience is worth the price of the ticket. To tell you the truth I personally was relieved to be able to sit quite next to my mom and let someone else do the talking as there have been many a family argument over the work I've been engaged in since 2008 suing McCain and Obama in 2008 on the eligibility issue as a candidate for President and continuing the stand in 2012 as a Democrat Presidential Candidate.
 
 
While I don't say this in justification of failure in the home,there's probably more then a truth or two about my last two marriages ending because of taking a stand for the Constitution in political races that ended unsuccessfully with the finances of my family in a crisis - the reality of underfunded campaigns for any candidate.
 
 
The truth of any political race is there is only one winner, and no matter how many people vote for the second place finisher, all the funds, all the votes, all the hoopla for the campaign doesn't make that campaign any better than the least voted candidate with the most under-voted campaign- it's still a loss and a calculable failure.
This brings me to the crux of this blog that is actually a question for everyone to ask themselves.
 
 
If Mitt Romney is unwilling to fight Obama on the grounds of the Constitutional demands of qualification for the Office of the President, allowing the usurpation, allowing the history to go down without justice to the fraud and forgery Obama has been apart of with the cover-up, spewing out false identification documents according to law enforcement investigations documented in my case Judy v. Obama now set for conference in the United States Supreme Court Sept. 24th, 2012, allowing Obama to build his presidential library and dis-honoring American culture with shocking racism  sending blacks back to a time before color television, then how do you suppose Romney is going to preserve, protect and defend America's Constitution any more then Obama has?
 
 
And if Romney is not going to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution any better the Obama, what makes your vote for Romney worth the disgrace to God for setting America aside as a peculiar nation of a distinct Republic for which we Americans stand?
While I would not base my vote on any man or women's religious preference, there are some who do. In my opinion one of the finest distinctions in America is the freedom of conscience in America, let them worship who, what, or how they may, for that is the ultimate test of your own religious freedom here in America.
 
 
Saying you wouldn't vote for a "Mormon" is just as easily said about any other religion that is a minority at any given point and is not representative of the United State's Congress Standards outlined in the Constitution, which are chosen by We The People as our Representatives and Senators.
God knows they let us down as the electorate reported the election in 2008 and their popularity has shown this sinking to an all time low, however the legislative mandate has stood the test of time not to allow any but a "Natural Born Citizen", or a "Citizen" before the ratification of the Constitution, to become President.
 
 
With that said and understanding Obama was not born before the Constitution was ratified, a "Natural Born Citizen" is born in the United States to at the very least parents who are "Citizens", or "Natural Born Citizens" themselves.
 
 
4063572638?profile=original
I believe Dr. Pastor James David Manning makes a credible argument for justice in the following video, as Obama did in legislative session 130 times,by simply voting present when it comes to the President by writing my name in on your ballot "Cody Judy", if the Democrats and Republicans and United States Supreme court refuses to demand justice for the honor of black people, white people, yellow people and any color of people in America.
 
 
You absolutely do not need to disgrace yourself before your God, or higher power, by voting for a lesser of two evils, and I do believe that in this case "inaction" or something that appears futile,ultimately can be seen as 'action' to protect the way that God or your higher power, thinks about you if you think that is relevant and important to you.
 
 
Talking to Iowans Obama this week said something to the affect "that their is always a choice and Americans were gonna have to make one", and Pastor Manning makes it a credible argument here, which has in large part not been articulated by any religious figure in America, that voting for the lesser of two evils is not voting for principle that makes a bit of sense.
 
 
So, I'll say you don't have to "not vote" for anyone, you can always write-in my name Cody Judy understanding no other qualified candidate on the ballot has stood up for and taken a stand against Obama's Eligibility other than me, as actually your present to Obama.
Perhaps Obama would win, but perhaps he will win anyway, and perhaps you will look better to your God in not choosing the lesser of two evils, and simply just choosing someone who took a stand and took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. They may be the highest court we can see in America, but I believe there is one above them in the heavens; that in Gods hands.
 
 
If Obama were to win in America in 2012 perhaps it will be the lesson needed to the majority who put him there, from God, to make of you Patriots of Freedom and Liberty like nothing else would. I know being enslaved myself 8 years as a prisoner of a usurped Constitution by the majority in Utah and the deaf ear of the United States Supreme Court for evidence held by the Presidency of the Mormon or LDS Church, that I became a Patriot of our Constitution like I had never been before.
Then by God your prayers would reach into the heavens and I think that while God might be slow to hear you he would, by the bloodiest revolution America has ever pondered, set your free again, and by that you wouldn't forget it for 1000 years.
 
 
In God's mind, perhaps the greatest lesson to the greatest amount of people, is the best lesson anyway and by that standard I sure wouldn't put it past him, in my own religious sentiment.
So, minus the words that voting for a "Mormon" is a no can do, and perhaps inserting the understanding that voting for a President who has taken a stand against Obama's eligibility consistently since 2008 is a must, here is Dr. James David Manning's articulate report on that matter that rings truth in the matter of apposing a political loss for Obama because he still gets the pension and the presidential library, and the obamanation of history I am apposed to as my founding fathers in America were also.
 
 
 
 
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Read more…

Public Enemy Number One

I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect.

While there are nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I am going to focus on one. If you haven’t guessed who I am referring to by now, it is Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed his office, or his seat, on 26 September 1986 as a Supreme Court Justice. Who is this Supreme Court Justice and what sets him apart from the rest? According to Wikipedia Justice Scalia is, “The longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing[i].” I would like to mention a few more items noted in Wikipedia before I continue, which I believe will give us something to work with regarding Justice Scalia. Wikipedia also notes, “In his quarter-century on the Court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the executive branch…and, in his minority opinions, often castigates the Court’s majority in scathing language.” I’ll also touch on Justice Scalia’s beliefs on such matters as flag-burning and abortion as they relate to the Constitution of the United States. I believe these items through his over 25 years on the Court will allow us to find out who Supreme Court Justice Scalia is and why so many people believe he is public enemy number one.

 

A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.

Antonin Scalia

 

Because I love the U.S. Constitution and know the founding fathers of this nation were great men, I believe that would be a good place to start. What does Justice Scalia mean when he speaks about originalism in constitutional interpretation? According to an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, the CBS News report states, “Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “originalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago[ii].” Personally, I like the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution[iii] in a manner that upholds the values, principles and words of our founding fathers who actually risked everything to create such a wonderful document for the people of the United States. In the report Justice Scalia goes on to explain what he means, “It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.” Ms Stahl notes, “Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution – like a right to abortion – by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.” Justice Scalia states why he is against the idea of a living Constitution, “What’s wrong with it is, it’s wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution.” So it is apparent, Justice Scalia believes the U.S. Constitution should be and is our ‘rock solid foundation’ which we stand upon and which has elevated us, the United States, to our (at least once) grand stature. With regard to the founders, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “Well, it isn’t the mindset. It’s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Justice Scalia isn’t against progress or change, “Create it the way most rights are created…Pass a law.” But he is against changing the Constitution, our foundation. Like many people I believe if you wish to change the Constitution, lawmakers need to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make the Amendment. However, making a law in itself, is much less cumbersome, it just needs to be constitutional.

Why does Justice Scalia advocate textualism in statutory interpretation and what is it? Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Theory of Legal Interpretation stated, “How is it when you admit evidence of circumstances and read the document in the light of them? Is this trying to discover the particular intent of the individual, to get into his mind and to bend what he said to what he wanted?” Mr. Holmes, who I might add was a brilliant man, further states, “Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were[iv].” So I believe Mr. Holmes is stating textualism is not necessarily the intent of the man as much as it is the words themselves, as used by men in general, to understand the meaning of the words within a certain circumstance.

According to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The basic premise of textualism is that judges “must seek and abide by the public meaning of the enacted text, [as] understood in context” and should “choose the letter of the statutory text over its spirit[v].”” Mr. Davis further states with regard to textualism, “Only the statutory text has passed the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and that judicial reliance on unenacted intentions or purposes “disrespects the legislative process.”” Also according to Mr. Davis, textualists believe those ‘unenacted intentions and purposes’ are that which “Skirts the constitutional protections designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing legislative power.” So textualism maintains the separation of power within the three branches of government itself and protects the U.S. Constitution as well as the liberty of sovereign individuals and sovereign States.

Just so you know bicameralism is Congress as two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the definition of presentment I’ll go to Black’s Law Dictionary, “In criminal practice. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment Is an informal statement In writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it[vi].”

So between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mr. Davis of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Justice Scalia’s advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation is not the intent of what is or was meant, but the actual public meaning of the text itself within the context of what was said [in the statute] and this is done strictly to safeguard our liberty under the U.S. Constitution while holding the government in check. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution believed in limited government, to be sure, limited federal government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined[vii].”

 

Now imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after…the Naturalization clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Antonin Scalia

 

An example of one of Justice Scalia’s minority opinions can be found in Arizona v. United States. Justice Scalia states, “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding[viii]?” Justice Scalia goes on to say, “The President said at a news conference that the new program “is the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.” This is wonderful example of Justice Scalia castigating the majority (let’s call it) in scathing language-lite (I would have just called them spineless jellyfish). While the majority opinion was in favor of the President’s so-called plan of doing nothing other than trampling atop the rights of the sovereign State of Arizona, Justice Scalia sets himself apart and appropriately rebuffs the majority as well as the Executive branch. Justice Scalia states, “The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror…seems to me not so horrible and even less looming…the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written…Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia seems right on point and makes my previous statement with regard to the Supreme Court Justices in “On Sovereignty[ix]” seem a bit harsh. Quite frankly I should have stated the Supreme Court might as well be referred to as ‘Eight Empty Chairs’ instead of nine. Justice Scalia quite eloquently affirmed Arizona’s sovereign status and rebuked the Executive’s misguided stance as well as the Supreme Court’s inconceivable majority opinion. Why should the sovereign State of Arizona be required to allow its borders to be violated? As a sovereign State, Arizona has every right to secure its borders, protect its citizens and enforce Immigration Laws even if the Federal government doesn’t have the backbone or the intestinal fortitude to aggressively enforce those laws. I have always been unable to fathom why the federal government shirks its own responsibilities but has such a voracious appetite for prosecuting decent Americans who simply exercise their freedoms as they see fit, which seem to be at odds with the misguided beliefs of the jack-booted thugs in Washington.

Apparently, the Obama administration which flatly refuses to rigorously enforce existing immigration laws, just like his predecessor, George W. Bush who also refused to enforce those laws should not handcuff a sovereign State from doing so. Each sovereign State, like the nation as a whole, has its own Constitution and its own three branches of government. The federal government in my view is always subordinate to the States as well as the individuals who make up the States, unless one of the various constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual has been violated by the State. What right does the federal government believe it has to step in as ‘High Lord and Potentate’ and issue its so-called fatwa’s or to even dictate to the sovereign individuals and the sovereign States? The business of the State is just that, the business of the State. The federal government’s power is limited for a reason, the founders believed in the sovereign individual and the sovereign State.  Clearly, the federal government merely acts out of jealousy in its daily attempts to usurp what is not rightfully theirs as stated in the Law of the Land, the U. S. Constitution.

 

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Antonin Scalia

 

Now that we have seen Justice Scalia beat up on Obama, I think it would be a good time to touch on him [Scalia] as a strong defender of the executive branch. In Morrison v. Olson Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecutions of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States[x].” Clearly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the duties and power of the Executive Branch as separate from either the Legislative or Judicial Branches, as stated in Articles I and III respectively, and vice versa. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion continues, “In my view…the Court’s conclusion must be wrong…One of the natural advantages the Constitution gave to the Presidency, just as it gave Members of Congress (and their staffs) the advantage of not being prosecutable for anything said or done in their legislative capacities…It is the very object of this legislation to eliminate that assurance of a sympathetic forum.” As executive privilege is a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches operate independently from one another. Private decision making with their advisors, in this case the independent council was the Assistant Attorney General Olson, has to be done without fear of ‘how something might look’ to either of the other branches of government. Unless a crime has been committed, no branch of government may frivolously impede the duties of the other branches of government. Especially when the aim is simply to destroy an elected leader’s ability to carry out the duties of his office through a so-called witch hunt or a fishing expedition which effectively renders the elected leader impotent without just cause, or simply to act as a device to destroy one’s political enemy. “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” This is a good example of Justice Scalia’s strong defense of the executive branch. But in doing so, Justice Scalia is actually defending all three separate branches of government and their duties as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. What strikes me as even more paramount than the defense of the Executive and the separation of powers (which is extremely important), is Justice Scalia’s believe that in doing so it is in the defense of the individual freedoms which are ultimately protected.

Lastly, we should take a look at Justice Scalia’s conservative ideology. If we go back to the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Justice Scalia states, “I’m a law-and-order guy. I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.” An example of Justice Scalia’s impartiality, in spite of his own personal beliefs, is in regard to flag-burners, “If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag-burner into jail, but it was not up to me.” While that does sound conservative to me, it also sounds impartial. Justice Scalia clearly states his disdain for flag-burning and flag-burners, yet his opinion with regard to the law is flag-burners are protected under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not so certain I could be so fair-minded. It seems to me, flag-burners have plunged themselves into the depths of the multitudes of depraved individuals around the globe who constantly burn our flag, yet cry a river whenever the United States does something with which they do not agree. Of course, they claim they burn our flag because of our aggression, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to that statement, these people which I speak of live in a barbaric rat hole as a result of their own choosing, not ours. Their argument is disingenuous as well as fallacious.

The right to abortion is another issue with which we are all too familiar, based on the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. – We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining[xi].” Whether someone is for or against abortion, it seems clear to me as it seems to be with Justice Scalia, nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state there is a right to abortion. However, I do believe as Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion states, this is a matter that should be left up to the States. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the federal government’s attempts to destroy States rights. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution? The easy answer is no, but if that is the case, then why does the federal government feel they have the right to enact a national law without going through the cumbersome amendment process to the U.S. Constitution? If a State or the people of a State enact a law which either affirms or denies the right to have an abortion through State law, the individual on either side is not held against their will in that State. They have the freedom and the right to leave and seek out their liberty in another State where the people of that State have beliefs which are more in keeping with their own set of beliefs. But to have a national law foisted upon us all with the misguided attempt at appeasement for some, completely disregards the others. Not to mention the fact that such an idea is completely foreign to the U.S. Constitution.

I would conclude by stating Justice Scalia is not only a fantastic jurist, but an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. This man has a clear grasp of the law and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution which is unparalleled. I happen to like the fact that he adheres to the public meaning of text in his interpretation of the statutes and how he sticks to what the founding fathers said and what the words meant to them regarding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia’s belief that the idea of a living constitution is in reality a dead constitution is an honorable defense of the U.S. Constitution. His belief that his duty is to defend an enduring Constitution speaks volumes about this man. Justice Scalia’s defense of the sovereign State in the face of Executive, Congressional and Judicial malfeasance is also quite noteworthy. To protect the sovereign State is to protect the sovereign individual and it would appear as though Justice Scalia is a staunch supporter of both. As I have already stated, he defends the Constitution, but he also does this by affirming there is a clear separation of power between the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution. His conservative leanings don’t seem to sway his opinions or impartiality with regard to any case. And his opinions in general are quite interesting to read. Justice Scalia shows up for work each day fully prepared to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot imagine why so many people hate this man, unless of course, it is because they hate the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Scalia is in many ways like Socrates, he questions and reproves, he educates and he enlightens. While in his interview with Ms Stahl he stated, “I was never cool,” I would have to disagree with him on that point. I personally believe Justice Scalia is in fact very cool, I might even go so far as to say he is a role model for decent and honorable men and not just young lawyers who someday wish to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is an example of a man who leads by example. If we had more like him on the Supreme Court, it’s possible our nation wouldn’t hit the nail right on our thumb quite so often.

 

If you think aficionados of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens to enact it. That’s flexibility.

Antonin Scalia[xii]

 

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

 

Brett L. Baker

 

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

 

References

 



[ii] CBS News; 60 Minutes, Justice Scalia On The Record, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml

[iii] Charters Of Freedom; Constitution of the United States, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[iv] Harvard Law Review; The Theory of Legal Interpretation, Oliver Wendell Holmes, pp 417-418. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321531?seq=1

[v] Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30]; The Newer Textualism: Justice Alito’s Statutory Interpretation, p. 988, Elliott M. Davis. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Davisonline.pdf

[vi] Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition Online; Definition of PRESENTMENT, http://thelawdictionary.org/presentment/

[vii] Founding Fathers Info; Federalist No. 45, James Madison. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

[viii] Arizona v. United States; Opinion of Scalia, J, pp 19-21. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

[ix] On Sovereignty; US Constitution: How the U.S. government fails to follow the U.S. Constitution and the incompetent, so-called leadership of the United States, http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/p/on-sovereignty.html

[x] Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute; Morrison v. Olson (No. 87-1279), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0487_0654_ZD.html

[xi] Gonzaga University; Scalia dissent in the Casey case, http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/scalia.htm

Read more…

4063570540?profile=original


FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
               and
 
 
Cody Robert Judy's U.S. Supreme Court Case Boosted for Conference
 
 
 
 
In David Weldon v. Obama http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5.htm you'll notice it was docketed July 2nd, and now was scheduled for distribution of conference Aug 8th for Sept. 24th. That is 36 days in between the time it was docketed and the time a docket report was made Aug 8th of the distribution for conference.
 
 
My case Judy v. Obama  http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5276.htm  My case was docketed July 17th and its been 44 days and it is still there has been no docketed date for it or when it is distributed for conference.
 
 
Now, according to Van Irions- Liberty Legal "Some have suggested that the Court’s failure to order the President to respond to LLF’s petition is a sign that the Court has already decided that it will deny our petition. Normally it is true that if the Court is interested in a case it will order the opposing side to file a response to the petition.However, because of the importance of this case it could be that the Court has decided to accept the case without needing to review a response from Mr. Obama. It is also possible that the Court has recognized that ordering a response could delay the case beyond the November election.
As we learned last June, it is very difficult to determine what the Supreme Court will do in any given situation. We are glad to know that we will have an answer before the end of next month."
 
Van Irions also has promised to file an Emergency Motion that the case be heard before the Nov. Election, but no record indicates it has been done. I filed my Emergency Motion and it was docketed as "Petitioner's Supplemental Brief" on the docket.
 
Of course I'm wondering what might be up. Logically, the court might have received more cases so that the ratio of time of docket to time of setting for conference is not kept. I thought I shouldn't be more then 14 days behind their case, but I'm also wondering if what Van Irions is saying is correct- and the Court was indeed forwarded my Emergency Brief and has looked at my case.
 
Understanding that Obama's lawyer also received my Emergency Brief and refused to answer, and because my Emergency Brief outlined time to respond and time to argue, that the Court would consider Obama's Team in default to ANY RESPONSE OR ORAL ARGUMENT, and thus simply rule on the merits of my case THAT they are free to make a decision on now anytime. I wonder if we could be actually that close and not even realize it?
 
This morning I called the United States Supreme Court Court case analyst assigned to me and inquired of the discrepancy and it was immediately rectified, in away that surprised me.
 
Not only was my case set for conference but it was set for the very first date available for conference after Summer Recess which was Sept 24th, 2012 and is the same day that Weldon v. Obama was set.
 
4063570600?profile=original
 
Now the interesting thing about this is the Court will consider all the Georgia Cases appealed at the same time. What they will find however is the normal dismissal for standing and cause of action upon which relief can be granted that thus far has been the BIGGEST factor in dismissing the cases does not exist in my case.
 
The other factor that must be considered now also is the IF Obama is made the Democratic Party nominee in the Sept 6th at the Democratic Party National Convention, Mitt Romney could conceivably contend Obama is NOT QUALIFIED as a Natural Born Citizen, and it would send the Democratic Party back to a state prior to the National Convention in which delegates would perhaps have to re-think their nomination or ultimately sacrifice the election to Mitt Romney entirely.
 
I am very pleased to have actually been boosted at least 2 weeks from my docketing date and to receive the Sept. 24th, 2012 conference date as of today, August 30th, 2012.
 
Please enjoy the latest commercials that the Campaign has put out.
 
1 Min Spot The Trial of Leadership- Obama's not a Natural Born Citizen
 
 
 
 
 
2- 30 Sec. Spot Birtherism American Exceptualism
 
 
 
 
3- 30 Sec. Spot Mitt Romney Believes in America?
 
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Read more…
 
4063570267?profile=original
 
 

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
 
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC- The Trial of Leadership
 
 
       Hello and Good Day from The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign. We hope you are having a good day and we are looking forward to a great Convention. A couple of things to share:
 
 
Today we release the 3rd Commercial in as many days. Yes, we are working hard because we believe that Cody's Law Suit in the United States Supreme Court is going to be a factor in the upcoming election.
 
This 60 Second Commercial brings something very important that both the Mitt Romney Campaign and the Barack Obama Campaign seem to be purposely glossing over. The Constitution is certainly not only about "Obama's Eligibility as disability to the Natural Born Citizen demand for President", however we must all pause briefly and understand just how big of a part that clause is when it comes to our individual rights.
 
We have seen Obama sign Executive Orders like we have never seen before, and for the most part, we believe Mitt Romney is right behind him in making comments like, " Yeah, I'd sign that one too, and I'll just promise never to use it". Our Nation has run at times at a stand still, and often wise men have inclined that 'standing still' was better than progressing over a cliff, or sliding back into an abyss.
 
Indeed Conservatives actually like it slow because more trouble is avoided in far more instances at being slow then in rushing off in a knee jerk reaction, such as we saw Congress do with the Patriot Act which opened the door wide open for the Government to spy and search and detain on Americans without a warrant from the Judicial Branch. Now Obama can just kill you if he wants too.
 
You see as those precious liberties are infringed we see the rise of intensity toward Tyranny. Perhaps you think Mitt Romney would never use those powers, or Obama would never detain Americans without cause or charges, but these intense deprivations and dilapidation's of the Constitution have English Writers memorializing our Constitution as something that has indeed passed away.
 
There is no greater force within our Constitution than the trust the People have given the American President, and that is why the demands of a natural born citizen, (born in the United States to Citizen Parents) was detailed so wisely into the Constitution. What was to make us different from England or any other Democracy but our Republic. Its the Republic , the Constitutional Republic for which we stand. Remember that 'Pledge of Allegiance"? How long has it been since you recited it?
 
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." Did you know that "under God" was added in 1954? What about that liberty and justice for all? Has it become just to hard, or burdensome to protect the individuals rights?
 
Boy, wait till you need them, and believe me you will want them someday, and could really say they wouldn't want them for their children or grandchildren? Speaking of this I just have to say how much I enjoyed Ann Romney's speech at the Republican Convention. I know I'm running as a Democrat, but I'll tell you she is one elegant, classy, intelligent, heart warming women and certainly is the love of Mitt Romney's life.
 
I was just thrilled to hear her story and romance and courage echoing throughout America of what is possible. They have had a great life and it is really nice to see that love that is out there. As she spoke of wanting that for her children, and grandchildren, I just had to bite my lip and wonder if she realized how important our Constitution was and how important it was to uphold on the eligibility of the Office of the President?
 
How could she not understand that? She spoke of the security that is wanted for women who are single and how women were the ones that really did the hardest work at home holding the family together. I wondered, "What responsibility do women have for Obama's eligibility?"
 .
I wondered at a flash forward horror show that Ann Romney might see if our Constitution is not upheld specifically on Obama's Eligibility? What would happen to our children and grandchildren if the umbrella under which we find ourselves under God, is folded up and our Nation plummets into the ravages of dictatorship, tyranny, chaos, not on some foreign battle field, but in our own backyards?
 
For one reason or anther Mitt Romney just doesn't get it. It doesn't matter why, he just doesn't get it, but I do and I understand the danger that compromising our Constitution places us all in, both economically and militarily. That's why I had to run for President. No one else was seeing this and I just couldn't understand why.
 
Well, Judy v. Obama Case No. 12-5276 is in the United States Supreme Court now, and it will have its day in Court. I pray not for Obama's reputation not to be smeared or stained, I pray for our children and our grandchildren and their lives. How they will know the freedom and liberty in America if we don't take a stand? Wherever you are, whoever you are, I pray earnestly that your heart feels the same as mine and that you will forward this to someone your heart cares for in the great concern of this election.
 
New 60 Second Spot-  The Trial of Leadership- Obama's not a Natural Born Citizen
The trial of leadership begins with the defense of the Constitution in America because without the Constitution individual rights are compromised. Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign 60 Sec. Spot.
 
 
 
 
Also, The Campaign was pleased to earn a Principle Focus on MORAL MATTERS. ORG with this important story.
 MORAL MATTERS.ORG
 

Cody Robert Judy: Mitt Romney soft on Obama America and the Constitution

 

http://moralmatters.org/2012/08/29/cody-robert-judy-mitt-romney-soft-on-obama-america-and-the-constitution/
 
Cody's in 2nd place now on the poll being conducted over at Birther Headlines, so check that out and if you haven't voted, please have some fun and vote in a fun poll.
 
 
Sincerely,
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Read more…

 


FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
 
BIRTHERISM IS AMERICAN EXCEPTUALISM-Mitt Romney apologizes for America.
 
 
Yesterday Barack Obama's Camp flew a Banner over Mitt Romney's gathering that said, "America is better then Birtherism", though misspelled the Romney Camp refused to take the Constitution on its demand for a natural born citizen for the office of the President seriously, and instead of sounding a resolute, "Democrats better have a qualified candidate if I'm made the nominee", Romney couched and didn't have the courage for the Constitution that is requisite with someone's character to hold the office.
 
 
This basically was an apology for America, which Mitt was on record of accusing Barack Obama for doing; apologizing for America's Constitution? What kind of a leader would do such a thing about our Constitution?
 
 
Citizens wonder what kind of character it takes to be President? Well, this was a perfect example of the kind of character that would not be a good example ,or leader, or voice, or defender for the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution as the oath requires.
 
 
If Mitt Romney can not stand against Barack Obama in simply demanding our Constitution be upheld for the office of which he is running outlined by the Constitution, that is taking a stand for American Exceptualism, how would he ever be able to protect America's national security against enemies foreign?
 
Cody Robert Judy has taken a stand for America and her Constitution against Barack Obama's slander at American exceptualism of which Birtherism is so intertwined and is on record with the United States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama Case no. 12-5276 for the defense of our Constitution. This is the kind of character we need for our President and Cody is running for President in the Democratic Party looking for the nomination of his party in Charlotte, North Carolina.
 
Enjoy the latest 2 Commercials- BIRTHERISM AMERICAN EXCEPTUALISM
 
 
 
 
Mitt Romney has declined on the Constitution to represent the qualifications of the President. Barack Obama doesn't like the Constitution because he's not a natural born citizen as is represented in SCOTUS Judy v. Obama 12-5276 from the Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign.
 
 
 
 
 
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES
Read more…

MITT ROMNEY BELIEVES IN AMERICA?

4063569047?profile=original

 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:

 
MITT ROMNEY BELIEVES IN AMERICA?
 
Featured YouTube Commercial

Mitt Romney 'Believes in America?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J87kC83o6F4 
 
 
 
 
The Founders of America invested their life's and fortunes in America. Mitt Romney has invested in the Cayman Islands. Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign points out that American Banks are Federally Insured, so if you believe in America invest in America. Taking savings outside the U.S.- is that a Republican trickle down economics principle?
 
 
Also, as Mitt Romney's rally was sabotaged by Obama's fly-over, please not Cody Robert Judy isn't the only campaign with spelling errors. Obama's team with a fly over that said, "America is better then Birtherism" was a laughing stock of the crowd as most realized it should have been a "than".
 
Rather then dig in on the long form birth certificate fabrication Mitt Romney again sides with Obama making the sign that Obama put up true in Romney's eyes, and again just another example of Mitt Romney NOT believing in America or her Constitution that an American President swears to uphold. 
 
 
 
 
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES
 
Read more…
4063568915?profile=original

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:

 
 
 
Democratic National Convention Delegates Consider Tea Party as Tipper in Presidential Candidates
 
 
Its easy to see that in the Presidential Race of 2012 its a close call with Obama and Romney especially if The Tea Party-Birthers-& Independents abandon Obama based on the Economy drudging and lack luster. There is one scenario the Democrats have to play which may bring the Tea Party, Birthers, and Independents back out of the Romney camp and onto the Democratic Party ticket for a win of the White House in 2012.
 
 
Cody Robert Judy though relatively unknown by the national media is very well known in the Tea Party , Birther, and Independent circles and is running as a Presidential Candidate on the Democratic Party ticket and could conceivably wrestle the nomination away from Obama especially given he has an eligibility challenge on Obama in the United States Supreme Court.
 
Its no secret any more that Mitt Romney is courting the Tea Party, Independents and Birthers with the shot over the bow he made this last week in a comment that "no one had asked him for his birth certificate".
 
The comment drew a huge response from the crowd and was necessarily a defining sentence at what Mitt Romney is prepared to do to win the Presidency. In a close down-to-the-wire call Mitt Romney very conceivable as the Republican Nominee after his nomination at the Republican National Convention could challenge Obama's eligibility after the Democratic Party National Convention, if Obama were to be made the nominee.
 
The United States Supreme Court precedent case Minor v. Happersett has concluded that a 'natural born citizen' was a person born in the United States to Citizen parents. Obama's declared father was not a citizen of the United States at any time, and because Obama's long form birth certificate has been proven a forgery by a law enforcement agency investigation, doubts have surfaced on whether Obama was even born in the United States.
 
Why go to the trouble of forging a birth certificate,draft registration, and using a social security card that doesn't pass e-verify if everything is legit with your identity? This is obviously an Achilles problem for Obama under the Constitution's demands for a natural born citizen.
 
In addition Obama's law licence earned from a degree at Harvard was suspended permanently for his failure to disclose that he had indeed gone under the name of Barry Soetoro. Over 2200 hours of investigation from the Cold Case Posse of Sheriff Joe Arpaio has shown further evidence of identity tampering from other government agencies further eroding the trust America has in her own government.
 
Cody has the whole law enforcement investigation forwarded to the Untied States Supreme Court. With the election in November, and possible challenge coming from Mitt Romney should he come up just short of enough electorate votes, Obama's eligibility question could throw the whole election into the Untied States Supreme Court anyway at an even more precarious time.
 
Cody Robert Judy's Case in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Case No. 12-5276 could be the answer before the critical General Election whereby millions of Democratic Party votes would not be dis-enfranchised, and moreover could spell out a win for the Democratic Party in the White House much more friendly than a Mitt Romney win.
 
The time has come for the Democratic National Delegates to consider the possibilities if the United States Supreme Court refuses to answer the urgent request of Cody to hear his  Emergency Appeal for its decision before the Democratic Party National Convention Sept 5th, 2012 in Charlotte,North Carolina.
 
The quandary has inspired Cody to write,produce, and perform the song "The Birther Train- Money Can't Buy You Love'.
 
Its dual purpose was both a warning to the Democratic Party Delegates that Obama's Campaign, though well funded, may not be the ticket for 'love' or the win in 2012, and simultaneously act as a declaration to Mitt Romney, that though he has millions of dollars stashed off shore refusing to invest it in America, that balking on actually defending the Constitution as the President's oath declares is both a harbinger and a definition of his character that ultimately will not win him any 'love' from the voters in the general election.
 
Cody Robert Judy has consistently asserted in his political platform and decade long political activism running for office in elections '02,'04,'08,'10 and now 2012, that America can handle and face the truth and understand that the Economy can recover if America will turn back to its founding principles espoused in the Constitution.
 
Cody said today, " Its time America woke up and realized that Mitt Romney has been around for a long time and if he has some 'magic key' for the economy has indeed refused to give it unless he was 'President'? That sounds more like a hostage or ransomed price to pay. I didn't tell America that I would take a stand for the Constitution against any usurper if they would elect me. I just did it because it was right and I did it before being elected as a gift that necessarily would not have or hasn't had any immediate reward. I may never get paid for it, but living in America and having the opportunities I have has helped me understand that freedom isn't free and is something to be grateful for. The gift of our Constitution under the banner of our Creator came at great financial sacrifice and the ultimate price of many lives."
 
Perhaps its time America realized that deeds for the Constitution aren't cheap, and though Mitt Romney is very wealthy and blessed in the standard of the dollar, he has performed very poorly in the defense of the Constitution as a candidate for President in 2008 and 2012 in defending the qualifications of the President declared in the Constitution, that represents a breach in the national security of our nation, and necessarily the key to Obama's actions on the economy thus far. Mitt Romney let's face it has been an Obama supporter for many years.
 
 
Now you know the story, enjoy the Original Music Video written,produced, and performed by The Cody Robert Judy Band.
 
Democratic Party National Convention in Charlotte , NC Aboard the Birther Train Money Can't Buy You Love
 
 
 

Money Can’t Buy You Love
Vs.1 You say its just a cover-up
While you were sleeping I had woken up
Now your wondering at the site you see
Baby there’s no way your going to blame me
Worry’n about the dough failing to hear my whistle blow
Don’t you know you reap what you sew?
 

Vs.2 While I begged for your attention
You know God gave me his redemption
You know I love you it’s just how I feel
But your still passing on me as a good deal
The tide comes in there’s an ebb and a flow
You bought his lie now there’s nowhere to go… there’s just no where to go

 

Vs.3 If you swim deep the heart won’t hide
The love for you I’m feeling inside
You know his love for you was always shallow
He shared nothing deep his shell always hollow
Now your seeing I’m the man – he’s just a ribbon boy
And I can see your about to grow up out of that toy… your about to grow up out of that toy.

 

Chorus: MONEY CANT BUY YOU LOVE- MONEY CAN’T BUY YOU LOVE- MONEY CAN’T BUY YOU LOVE
Speaking- Money can’t buy you love - Money can’t buy you love.
End Chorus:
Money can’t buy you love, Money can’t buy you love
The lust just turns to rust; the lust just turns to rust
And now you’ve got no trust, now you’ve got no trust
Money can’t buy your love, Money can’t buy your love
The Birther Train- Money Can’t Buy You Love is an exclusive CRJ campaign video that describes the cover-up of the Constitution by the Republican Candidate Mitt Romney. America has one campaign in the Democratic Party that puts the Constitution, America’s sovereignty, and our national security on the big train of the platform. Cody Robert Judy’s taking a stand and showing that through the principles of our Constitution our Economy can get back on track. Visit Cody’s Camp at www.codyjudy.us and enjoy the show where you as a Citizen of America have the courage to go.

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Read more…

How Conservative Does One Wife Make You?

4063555989?profile=original

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
and
 
 
HOW CONSERVATIVE DOES ONE WIFE MAKE YOU?
  
Of course Romney and Ryan would like you to believe they represent 'mainstream' America, but with the Nation at about a 50% divorce rate how do politicians who have never been divorced expect you to look at them and know what your talking about?
 
The same philosophy is touted by Mitt Romney in the jobs arena. He says because he was a successful businessman he can produce jobs. So how does being married to one women help him with the 50% divorce rate in America? The truth is it doesn't, and actually Mitt Romney hasn't been in the same condition financially that the shrinking middle class, the unemployed, and the poor are facing, well, let's face it, he never has been in the middle class or the poor class. 
 
Millions of Americans are suffering from greater stress because of the financial melt down of politicians who because they haven't supported the Constitution have increasingly made America either the policeman of the world propping up governments that are questionably a real threat, or busy making a nanny-state.  It works for awhile, but the buck just keeps getting pushed back to another generation.
 
 
 
The stress at home has never been greater in this generation with kids moving back in with parents,and parents increasingly at odds with children who've got used to 'having it all, all at once".
 
 
 
The truth is there are a lot of good solutions coming from Cody Robert Judy, both in the social arena as he has been through divorce as a child and adult as well as the small business end that is desperately needed to fuel America's economy back into working order.
 
 
 
What most people don't understand is just how valuable of a blue print our Constitution is and how its principles when followed could have kept us out of the trouble we are in.
 
 
 
The other thing people say is that Washington DC is so far gone that it just can't get back on track. Well, that may be true as far as the impact a single Representative or Senator might have, but when it comes to the President a lot can happen if someone is in office actually holds to the Constitution and governs with its principles in mind.
 
 
 
That's why Cody Robert Judy took a stand for the Constitution drawing a line in the sand with Barack Obama's eligibility requirements not being fulfilled as a natural born citizen and now has a case in the United States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama Case No. 12-5276.
 
 
 
Cody is asking the United States Supreme Court to actually hold up its own precedent and the Constitution in the 'natural born citizen' clause. If the court is unwilling to protect the Constitution in the office of the President from foreign influence the other principles of the Constitution might as well be chucked also, as is characteristic of what is happening in so many executive orders being signed and congressional acts being passed like the NDA, which allows Americans to be held without charges and incarcerated and of course the Patriot Act.
 
 

 
With Washington DC Politicians increasingly out of the loop of main stream America, the time has come to set Washington DC straight and clean both houses up and Cody is hoping that can begin in his United States Supreme Court case Judy v. Obama 12-5276. If it happens both the Democrats and Republicans who have been playing games with the Constitution and their oaths will be put on notice.
 
 
 
Let's hope the United States Supreme Court Justices still feel that interpreting the Constitution as a check and balance at protecting the integrity of our offices, the demands for qualifications made, and of course their own jobs is important.
 
 
 
Enjoy the latest campaign commercial
ROMNEY/RYAN - How Conservative Does One Wife Make You?
 
The idea of saying your conservative because you've been married to one person is about what Romney and Ryan want you to choke down, especially given they completely turn their back on the Constitution in Obama's eligibility, and the fraud and forgery coming out of the White House as identification documents.
 
 
And please log on to www.codyjudy.us and make a contribution to this campaign Taking A Stand, the title of Cody's book.
 
 
 
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES
Read more…