Obama's first big challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court came in 2008 from a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania ,Democratic Party chairmen of Montgomery County, and author of recently released ObamaScare, Phil J. Berg. The lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of standing. (Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) Phil Berg was not a Presidential Candidate and his assertion of standing due to an infringement of his voting capacity to vote for an eligible candidate did not convince the U.S. Supreme Court.
|Sept 2nd 2015 PF The Fact-Checker's Guide
It was even shocking to hear those words come out of Hillary's mouth while a pending FBI Investigation, continually denied as ongoing, was mired in recent revelations of SAP evidence exceeding TOP Secret that have the FBI legitimacy pitted against Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign.
On that subject, all things are Political according to the defense of Hillary Clinton's Campaign against the FBI Investigation despite laws, regulations, and Hillary Clinton's own signature subjecting herself to those regulations of Top Security Clearances. The totality of the investigation is a vast right wing conspiracy to her. So what would Hillary Clinton or her Campaign call the assault upon the qualifications of the Office of the President in the U.S. Constitution- a vast right wing conspiracy? With Ted Cruz involved, probably.
Indeed, the link that really should exist or concern American's between Hillary Clinton's allegedly targeting womenwho were victims of affairs with her husband Bill, that one women described as writing the book on terrorizing women on terrorism, and the Emailgate of national security being compromised on her Private Server, is the motive of both of them: Tyrannical Control.
Galvanizing support in discrediting testimony of course is a tactic used by lawyers in defense of those assaulting women in an effort to amass control of a runaway demonizing prosecution. The same motive exist for Hillary Clinton in choosing to use a Private Email Server where she gains the totality of control on what Emails will and won't be released in Freedom of Information Act or FOIA Request. The control of the information and then the framing of that information is critical in presenting the picture to the Media and by the Media to the General Public. The motive between the two is then the "Control Factor". Control the testimony's to Bill's infidelities, and control the FOIA request with the use of her private server, to hell with national security?
This allowed and afforded SCOTUS Justices great latitude in the assignment of simply Standing for the Standard of the U.S. Constitution. What has happened to that Assignment in regards to the Qualifications of [natural born Citizen ] distinct to the Office of the President and Vice President? Have the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court politicized or made political their own assignments by refusing to hear Judy v. Obama 14-9396 based on a refusal to grant Forma Pauperis where it should have been granted by all accounts? It is a 12 month Form for God's sake, come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude an arbitrary denial has taken place.
But has the U.S. Constitution even become Politicized? The interest of course is there with so many different States coming into agreement with varying laws that the 10th Amendment was witnesses as necessary to allow and afford States Rights independent and in a defense of the Claim of Federal Dictatorship. This emphasized the difference ofEnglish Common Law and the Laws of Nations or principles of natural law.
Of course great differences existed in the Colony States, but probably the most understated, mutually agreed upon, edict of all with no disagreement was the [natural born Citizen] Clause of the Qualifications of the Office of President. They all agreed it was a really good idea. Yes, they were from many different perspectives and opinions in total agreement.
Now instead of a simple refusal to look at the [natural born Citizen] clause of the Constitution disagreed upon by two Candidates for President, one holding damages by the other's crippling regard to rules and regulations in Judy v. Obama 14-9396, you have the stark addition to the introduction of cruelty for economic conditions seen in a denial of access to Justice by the highest Court.
To label it mildly egregious is as misleading as seeing the Flint, Michigan Government Officials cover-up lead poisoning findings and assert everything is fine while the residence of Flint complaints steadily stream that the water looks, smells, and taste bad. Understanding the Office of the President should be protected as rigorously by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices as the Mayor and Governors should protect water.
Interestingly it was the ACLU who leaked the Internal EPA contamination of the water. The American Civil Liberties Union whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
So does the ACLU figure water is more important in value than the Office of the President's qualification denied by the egregious denial of a Forma Pauperis Motion? Apparently so. American's know that shoplifting is a crime and is prosecuted heavily and they also know and see that stealing the White House is aloud in a polluted, ill-hearted, and poisoned defense of the most important Office in the U.S. Constitution. This cannot stand.
It's not a prank, or a joke, or a thrill. It's a Crime!