H. Brooke Paige V Vermont et al US Supreme Court case update, April 24, 2014, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen status challege, Marbury V Madison revisited

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From H. Brooke Paige April 24, 2014.

“Wells,

Current “scoop” at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx  docket
13-1076 additional information appears at:
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1076 where the case will be shown as
scheduled for conference when a date is set (no sooner than 14 days after
date set for response).

The State filed a response waver March 26th, if the case passes muster in
the conference, SCOTUS would request that the State file a response – in
the absence of which the case would proceed on the merits outlined in my
writ.

Another Vermont SCOTUS case just after mine – Daniel Brown v Vermont,
State filed response waver on was received on April 4th with the case
“distributed” on April 16th for the conference on May 2nd.
https://certpool.com/dockets/13-1113, the conference schedule is found at:
https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-05-02

I suspect that SCOTUS is awaiting “candidate Obama’s” response
(required by April 9th) before scheduling the case for conference. All
cases are considered in conference.

For now patience seems in order – the conference review is the
“gatekeeper” for SCOTUS cases – the “rule of four” decides which cases
will proceed – possibly on the May 22 or 29
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2013termcourtcalendar.pdf

Thank You for Your Continued Interest,

Brooke”

The FEC recently ruled in Hassan that since he was not a natural born citizen, he was ineligible for federal matching funds. That case was simple. Hassan admitted that he was not born in the US. The FEC may soon be confronted with a more complex ruling because the definition of natural born citizen has not been clarified. The US Supreme Court has failed to do their duty.

 
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”

Marbury V Madison