Vermont Supreme Court Obama eligibility, October 18, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal, VT justices rule case is moot, Obama already president???
“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
“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells
“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.”
“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
“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 versus Madison
I received the email from H. Brooke Paige last night.
“VT Sup Court ruled today. Interesting decision that will allow us to
proceed to SCOTUS.”
Instead of expediting this case the lower court and VT Supreme Court dragged their feet thus making their decisions after the election.
In essence, the case is moot because Obama is already president and cannot run again.
“BURGESS, J. Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige appeals a decision by the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division, granting a motion to dismiss by the State and its Secretary of State James Condos.
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds because injury to his life, liberty, and property confers standing, as do Vermont election statutes, 17 V.S.A. §§ 2603 and 2617. Plaintiff
also asserts that the past presidential election does not render his case moot because this Court can still provide declaratory relief. We disagree, and dismiss the appeal as moot.”
“¶ 6. The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff argues this case is not moot because the Court can provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and asserts that a controversy continues through plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. Plaintiff also contends that this case satisfies two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, plaintiff anticipates that a situation involving an ineligible presidential candidate is capable of repetition yet evades review because President Obama may run for a third term if Congress repeals the Twenty-Second Amendment, or other presidential candidates not born of two U.S. citizens are likely to run
for president in the future. Second, plaintiff asserts that he suffers negative collateral consequences as a result of Barack Obama’s presidency that impact his life, liberty, and property.
¶ 7. The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. Accordingly, this Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”
“¶ 9. Recognized principles of mootness apply to the present case because it no longer involves a live controversy. Plaintiff has no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Barack Obama’s name was on the ballot, and he is now the President of the United States. President Obama is also unable to seek re-election.
U.S. Const. amend. XXII. The issuance of an advisory opinion assessing the merits of plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is beyond this Court’s constitutional prerogative. See In re Keystone
Dev. Corp., 2009 VT 13, ¶ 7, 186 Vt. 523, 973 A.2d 1179 (mem.) (explaining that this Court lacks authority to render an advisory opinion).”
Vermont Supreme Court Ruling.