Worldnetdaily Still Beating Birther Drum

You almost have to admire the birthers for one thing: They sure don’t give up easily. They continue their impersonation of the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail — “It’s just a flesh wound!” — with yet another attempt to get the Supreme Court to hear a case they’ve turned down many times before. “Obama Eligibility Case lives!” declares the headline.

The question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement is once again being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has refused to hear a number of previous cases.

Judges have ruled Obama’s eligibility is a political question that is not for the courts to decide. They have argued the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing,” the requirement that they have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that can be redressed by a court.

Now, however, a plaintiff has surfaced who claims he has suffered a specific and individual injury – the $90 he is seeking to have returned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The president’s eligibility is being questioned in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the constitutional experts at William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation.

They are asking the high court to take up the case of Christopher John Rudy, a registered patent attorney who paid to the Patent and Trademark Office “fee increases” totaling $90 under the America Invents Act, “purportedly enacted into law in September 2011 by Congress and the president.”

Rudy sued for a refund “on the ground that the AIA was invalid, having been signed into law by Barack Obama, a person who … was not a ‘natural born citizen,’ and thus, was ineligible to hold the office of president of the United States.”

The courts rejected his claim, insisting they had no authority to look into Obama’s eligibility.

The headline is quite amusing. The case doesn’t live, for crying out loud. This is like a child who asks its parents for a cookie repeatedly, then screaming “My cookie demand lives!” when they decide to ask for the 147th time after being told no the first 146 times. You aren’t getting the goddamn cookie, kid, and it doesn’t matter how much you stomp your feet or hold your breath until you turn blue.

"You have to be really dumb to consider climatology, glaciology, astronomy, ecology, biology, palaeontology, botany, ..."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"No one asked your boner, cupcake."

Fox News Tries to Explain Away ..."
"Lemme guess -- you're an engineer."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"Bacterial enzymatic decomposition also produces heated outhouses."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    Any law signed by Obama would be declared invalid? I guess that is another way to make Obamacare disappear. On the other hand, it would be amusing to see WDN’s reaction when the military and law enforcement personnel that they support were to suddently have to give back 6+ years of salary that came from a budget that was inappropriately passed.

  • colnago80

    I sincerely doubt that Farah really believes in this crap. It’s just a grift for the rubes who take the Whacknutdaily web site seriously.

  • colnago80

    Hey, Rudy practices law in Port Huron, MI. Michiganders put bags over your heads.

  • Kevin Kehres

    Well, I think you have a new nominee for “dumbest lawyer not named…”

  • whheydt

    Pity Obama wasn’t born two years earlier…just before Hawaii was admitted as a state. Then the people pointing and laughing at the birthers could invoke the clause about foreign born individuals being qualified by being in the US when the Constitution came into force (locally).

    (Doesn’t *really* apply, of course, but I’d bet the birthers don’t know that.)

  • abb3w


    Any law signed by Obama would be declared invalid? I guess that is another way to make Obamacare disappear.

    Alas, probably not. The president doesn’t have to sign a bill for it to become law; he just can’t veto it. So, the two bills Obama vetoed would become law, and a few laws might have to be checked to see if proximity to a recess would trigger a “pocket veto” — but there wasn’t a recess in the two weeks after passage of the PPACA; ergo, it would remain law, regardless. Of course, in this fantasy world a mass of the ACA’s administrative implementation (such as contraceptive regulations) could be brought into question, but it wouldn’t go away outright.

    So, unless this idiot also wants to claim that the America Invents Act was not actually passed by Congress, his claim doesn’t hold water. Whether or not Obama was President, there was no recess in September 2011, so the America Invents Act did not get a pocket veto; and since whoever might have lawfully been entitled to be the acting President (probably Biden) did not return veto the bill, it is law — and the plaintiff’s claim is moot to the alleged injury, rendering the claim a non-justiciable controversy.

  • oranje

    @3: A lot of our politicians make me do that. Though it’s handy today, when it’s cool and raining. Thanks, Lake Superior!

  • iangould

    So, the 2012 tax increase (which made much of Bush’s tax cuts permanent) was illegal too?

  • bushrat

    I’m starting to wonder if all birther’s have had their brains knocked out, or if they just like the wet, hollow thud their heads make when they repeatedly bash them up against this stone wall.

  • jnorris

    abb3w @ #6: you are using logic and the law. That is not how the game is played. If you continue to do this, William J. Olson, P.C. and the United States Justice Foundation will take their lawsuit and go home and be so puotty face all day and not eat their dessert and then you’ll see!

    Actually, I bet the United States Justice Foundation has already sent out the fund raising emails to the base for the millions this lawsuit will cost above the few thousands it really costs to file a lawsuit and challenge it on appeal.

  • Mobius

    Ed, I miss the days when you referred to WND as “World Nut Daily”. It is only one letter different, and yet SO descriptive.

  • grepo

    “The headline is quite amusing. The case doesn’t live, for crying out loud.”

    It’s called click-bait!