Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[bob]

P&E comment:

I executed “Plan B” on June 19, 2021. I am working with a local congressman to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to finally state what the Term of Art “Natural Born Citizen SHALL mean…” pursuant to Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 USConst. I have been working with this Congressman for months regarding this issue.

[northland10]

How many years have we been telling them, if you really want it your way, amend the Constitution?

I seriously doubt he would have more than maybe 1 or 2 takers for a 2-citizen definition but it should be easy work to get a current legislator or Senator to propose an amendment for a 1 parent citizen definition. They have been trying for years to do that very thing for birthright citizenship. While the previous pushers, King and VItter, are no longer in Congress, I can easily name a few that would probably jump on board.

It probably will have just as much success as the previous attempts (sent to development hell in committee) but at least it is a more productive step than what Laity has been doing.

[bob]

P&E comments:

As I suspected your petition doesn’t begin to meet the requirements for a successful petition for rehearing. It is as if you never even bothered to read the rule you had to meet. Therefore, your failure is cast in stone.

I read the rule that I “had to meet”. There are rules that the Justices must also “meet”. They have abrogated those rules as well as their Judicial oaths.

Rules are for little people, which Laity most certainly is NOT.

[northland10]

It has been docketed which I assumed it will. It is much easier for the shipping clerk to just do the distribution and let it die on its own.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 002464.pdf

[bob]

P&E: Laity Acquires “Certified” Naturalization Documentation for Donald J. Harris, Father of Kamala Harris.

The only thing of note are links to copies of the naturalization documents, but I can't be bothered to carry them over.

[northland10]

P&E comment:

I executed “Plan B” on June 19, 2021. I am working with a local congressman to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to finally state what the Term of Art “Natural Born Citizen SHALL mean…” pursuant to Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 USConst. I have been working with this Congressman for months regarding this issue.

Like clockwork, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2021 was introduced on January 4.

Same old, same old. 1 citizen parent, or at least a lawful permanent resident, or soldier. None of which would qualify under birther standards.

Being an act to redefine "jurisdiction" would likely fail in court if it ever made it out of committee (which it never does). In past years, they would go back and forth between an act and an amendment.

This bill limits birthright citizenship by redefining what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Currently, a person born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is entitled to citizenship. Under the bill, a person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction if he or she is born to a parent who is (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces.

The bill does not affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the bill's enactment date.

Introduced by Babbin of TX. 27 cosponsors that do not surprise me. Many of the Freshman Q class are there along with Brooks and Gosar, others. Goetz and Gym ain't there.

[bob]

Because I am a horrible person: Laity's disqus profile.

[Suranis]

How many years have we been telling them, if you really want it your way, amend the Constitution?

I seriously doubt he would have more than maybe 1 or 2 takers for a 2-citizen definition but it should be easy work to get a current legislator or Senator to propose an amendment for a 1 parent citizen definition. They have been trying for years to do that very thing for birthright citizenship. While the previous pushers, King and VItter, are no longer in Congress, I can easily name a few that would probably jump on board.

It probably will have just as much success as the previous attempts (sent to development hell in committee) but at least it is a more productive step than what Laity has been doing.

Ireland and (I'm 90% certain) England swapped to a 1 Parent citizen requirement decades ago. England dropped Jus Soli in 1984, Ireland 2002 and Australia 2003. 1 parent citizenship is not an unreasonable proposition, and you could make legitimate arguments for 2 parents, though its a much harder sell and has drawbacks.

That does not change the fact that it is not the law in the United States RIGHT NOW.

[noblepa]

I've never heard a coherent explanation of WHY a two-citizen-parent rule would be a good thing.

I know that the proponents didn't like the fact that a scary black man and, now, a scary black woman, made it to the two highest offices in the land, but aside from racism, what is the point? Just to prove that they weren't racist, a few of them argued that John McCain wasn't eligible, either, because he was born in Panama, while his naval officer father was stationed in the Canal Zone.

I'm not even sure that the NBC requirement makes complete sense in this day and age. It is my understanding that it was inserted to prevent minor nobility from Europe coming to America and taking over our politics. In 1776, that was a fairly common practice. Second sons of nobles or other lesser nobles, who stood little chance of political or economic power in their own countries, would emigrate to another country and have better luck. I don't think that this would be an issue today.

I think that there is an argument to be made that a naturalized citizen may have at least as strong an allegiance to this country as someone born here. After all, I didn't choose to be born in Ohio, but Arnold Schwartzeneger (and millions of others) made a conscious choice to move here and give up his Austrian citizenship.

[northland10]

Ireland and (I'm 90% certain) England swapped to a 1 Parent citizen requirement decades ago. England dropped Jus Soli in 1984, Ireland 2002 and Australia 2003. 1 parent citizenship is not an unreasonable proposition, and you could make legitimate arguments for 2 parents, though its a much harder sell and has drawbacks.

That does not change the fact that it is not the law in the United States RIGHT NOW.

Yeah.. the whole thing the birthers could not figure out that their preferred definition, which is their right to believe, is not the law in the US. For once, Robert has stumbled onto the one correct method for fixing their issue, though granted, it would take much longer than the courts.

As for changing to parent citizenship, the history and culture (not the "western culture" that the RW proclaims) of the US tends to push against that. Our history is a country of immigrants and no nobility. Being a colony, we were made up of people who were looking to escape the limitations to growth imposed by having to inherit a title and instead of being able to grow based on your abilities (well, as long as you're white, of course). Jus Soli is not just an inherited concept (ironically) but also provided us a break with the rule of "who your father is." One of the additions in the Constitution was banning the "corruption of blood."

Birthers attempt to claim we changed to be different from England but by doing so, they discount how much we disliked how the whole of the governments of Europe operating. We liked Jus Soli because it fit our situation and was a repudiation of the continental control by the nobility. We decided on NBC not out of fear of English but out of the fear of the many continental princes seeking to interfere with our affairs. We used France for our convenience and not out of some greater love for them (as they did the same). It's sort of ironic that a bunch of the birthers appears to have no issue with Russia's interference and their alleged control of a president (alleged is used only in the fact that there is has not been proven in a court of law, etc, though if the tables were reversed, the birthers would be screaming absolute fact).

Obviously, our anti-nobility, anti-heredity beliefs have not always held up wonderfully in real life. Humans are usually less than their best parts and we have created political and corporate dynasties over the years (and seem to have an obsession with Christian ministry dynasties - Fallwell, Graham, Osteen, Hagee, Kennedy, Schuller, etc.). I have believed that Hillary lost in part, not just because the right hated her with a passion, but that it would be a continuation of the back and forth between political dynasties, Bush and Clinton.

[bob]

Birthers say their definition of natural born citizenship prevents divided loyalties.

My usual response is, "Please describe how Obama expressed his loyalties to Kenya that were at the expense of the United States' interests." (Ditto with Harris and Jamaica.)

The weaktea reply is either silence or a generalized, theoretical threat.

But ask about tax returns giving clues to foreign entanglements, and the response is, "Candidates aren't required to disclose those."

Another common thought is the two-citizen "rule" is the strongest check against foreign influence. Sure, but there's no evidence that the Framers desired the strongest check.

[noblepa]

Birthers say their definition of natural born citizenship prevents divided loyalties.

I know that that is their argument. I don't buy it.

My point, especially with my example of Arnold S., was that newborn babies have no loyalty or allegiance. That is strictly a learned behavior. It seems to me that someone who chooses to come here may feel as strong or stronger loyalty than someone who is a citizen simply by an accident of birth.

And there have been many natural born American citizens over the years who have spied for enemies or taken other actions that indicate divided loyalty.

So, I categorically reject the notion that birth is the sole determiner of allegiance.

Their insistence on two-citizen parents, to me, reinforces my argument that allegiance is a learned behavior, not inborn. Parents must teach it to their children, or the children must learn it from some other source, but it is not genetic.

I'm sure that German jews fleeing Nazi oppression felt little or no allegiance to Germany, even though many had been born there.

I'm sure that, if Ted Cruz makes a run for the 2024 nomination, there may be a handful of crazies who insist he isn't eligible because he was born in Canada, but there will not be a groundswell of opinion, and there will be no talking heads on Fox arguing that he is ineligible.

It is a straw that racists have latched onto, pure and simple, even if they won't admit it.

[bob]

Laity's rehearing petition isn't on today's SCOTUS list, the last of this term.

We will be all and until October.

[northland10]

Sort of surprised that they have not distributed it yet. Not distributing on the 16 made sense since it was docketed that day, but they did not distribute it on the 23rd. I forget the timing between docketed and distribution date. In either case, it would have been set for the 27 September conference.

[northland10]

It is a straw that racists have latched onto, pure and simple, even if they won't admit it.

Yep.

Madison once commented (I don't have a link right now as it was some time since I saw it) that he saw the Electoral College as the "strongest check" against those who would attempt to take over our country from the inside. He specifically used the term "strongest check." Granted, this was a time before they had come up with doing popular elections for the electors which reduced some of their reasons for the electoral college (as has the ability to communicate instantly, so the idea of having the electors all separate in their states and not together where they could be influenced by lobbying).

[bob]

P&E comments:

[W]hen Mr. Laity claimed he only needed one more justice to agree to hear his position because he had three already he was either badly misinformed or not being truthful.

I was not being untruthful. I was advised by a prominent attorney expressing an educated opinion. That is neither a lie nor misinformation. In any event the case is not over until it’s over.

"My girlfriend, who is in Canada...."

My WAG is that Laity will never disclose who this "prominent attorney" is, but it was Apuzzo.

[northland10]

When a justice feels strongly that cert should have been granted, they can and have filed a dissent to the denial. Thomas has not been shy in doing that in the past. And yet, he who claims that the court is evading the issue (ignoring that this is an in joke regarding Puerto Rico) has been silent on the denials.

Still, I would suspect the prominent attorney is likely Apuzzo. Other attorneys have avoided the birther issue.

[Jim]

Another common thought is the two-citizen "rule" is the strongest check against foreign influence. Sure, but there's no evidence that the Framers desired the strongest check.

'Seven of the 39 men who signed the Constitution were immigrants. In fact, two of the three men most associated with its passage, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, were foreign-born."

If there was foreign influence from being an immigrant, it's already a part of the Constitution. (There is, and it is)

[johnpcapitalist]

I was not being untruthful. I was advised by a prominent attorney expressing an educated opinion. That is neither a lie nor misinformation. In any event the case is not over until it’s over.

"My girlfriend, who is in Canada...."

My WAG is that Laity will never disclose who this "prominent attorney" is, but it was Apuzzo.

I think Laity's assertion is beyond the prototype you cite. I'm thinking more of Tommy Flanagan, and his wife, Morgan Fairchild, who he's slept with...

[bob]

P&E comment:

Liars and prevaricators use a tactic wherein they admit to wrongdoing and then start laughing. This to detract from any criticism of said comment. This to falsely be able to claim later that they were “Joking”. Clarence Thomas’ admission that SCOTUS is “evading” the eligibility issue was NOT a “Joke”.

So glad Laity's available to mansplain when a joke isn't a joke.

Bonus:

BTW, persons born in Puerto Rico are NOT eligible to be President or VP. Puerto Rico is NOT a fully incorporated and organized territory of the United States.

Puerto Ricans have had birthright citizenship for over a century now.

[Luke]

Our champion Bob & Rev Dr Laity Esq have been going at it at The New American, whatever that is, on an article about VP Harris' eligibility. The dead-enders are still stuck in 2009. Bob has a bit more bite over there since it's not moderated like the Post and Snowflake. But it's still amazing that these birthers keep writing, and writing, and writing as if something just might happen any day now.

Jon Smetana • 11 days ago
Let's say that President Biden (who really DIDN'T win the election) retires from his Presidency because of his poor health and Kamala Harris becomes President. Then let's say that the Supreme Court rules that Kamala Harris CAN'T be Vice-President or President based on the "natural born citizen" requirement. Would that automatically mean that Barack Obama was never President? Neither of Barack Obama's SUSPECTED fathers were "natural born citizens" of the USA: one was a citizen of Kenya and the other was a citizen of Great Britain; and that would mean that Obama was never President. I would think that the Supreme Court Justices would be thinking of all of this if the Constitution Association, Inc-Harris case goes to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Constitution Association, Inc., then all legal issues that took place from the day Obama became President would have to be unraveled. The lawyers would be very busy. I hope that happens. How historical!!! Bye bye Democratic party!!! And to top it all off, the Arizona audit, and then other state audits prove that Trump really won the 2020 election. Bye bye Democratic party!!!

RobertLaity Jon Smetana • a day ago
Obama WAS "never President". https://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17 ... ent-obama/ *

bob RobertLaity • a day ago
President Obama served as the President of the United States from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

President Obama twice won the popular vote.

President Obama was not impeached once. And certainly not impeached twice.

https://thenewamerican.com/evidence-is- ... 5439879748

* Laity loves to relive his editorial from 2010, he posts it all over. 11 years later.

There is no “President Obama”
BUT THERE ARE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS, THE COURTS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE
August 17, 2010

Dear Editor,

If Obama is a usurper, will we ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried out?

The Obama “Presidency” is nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as “President Obama.” I have said it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never been the President of the United States of America. Under the U.S. Constitution, one has to be a “natural born Citizen,” which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom are American Citizens, in order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth, Obama had only one American citizen parent. Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who Barack Obama is and if that is his real name? His entire past has been purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his “transparency Czar.” I suppose that he will be looking for an “Obfuscation czar.” After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help him “evade” the constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the Supreme Court was also “evading that issue.” John Paul Jones, American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a “country of illegitimate corruption.” Has the United States arrived at that same juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the second Brit to do so. The other was Chester A. Arthur. Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side. He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad (See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).

As reported by the BBC, Obama went to Kenya and while having owed allegiance to the United States, campaigned for Raila Odinga, a known enemy of the United States, giving Odinga aid and comfort. It was Odinga who wanted to be President of Kenya. He ran against President Mwai Kibaki, a Roman Catholic. Kibaki was/is an ally of the U.S. Obama campaigned against Kibaki and for Odinga. Obama has given a great deal of money to Odinga and has helped him lead Kenya down a billabong (Obama is ‘leading” the U.S. down the same billabong). Currently, the U.S. State Department is downplaying Obama’s activities in Kenya and his having sent taxpayer money there. Odinga instituted Sharia law in Kenya and collaborated with the same Muslim groups which bombed two U.S. embassies. Obama interjected his support of these activities. By campaigning for Odinga, Obama became a traitor to the U.S.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton, an Obama cohort and accomplice to fraud in the 2008 presidential election here in the USA, is the current Secretary of State. The U.S. is having mid-term elections in November. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is making plans to run as Obama’s Vice-President in 2012.

The adage “O, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive” is appropos here. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama’s activities.

Obama’s name will go down in infamy in the history books. The names “Benedict Arnold” and “Barack Obama” are synonymous. The terms “traitor” and “quisling” will have, as an addition, the term “obama.” “You are an ‘Obama'” will be heard to describe one who has betrayed his duty to America.

Robert C. Laity
Founding President
Society for the Preservation of Democracy
and Human Rights
————————

Editor’s Note: This letter was sent to whitehouse@autoresponder.govdelivery.com on Sunday, August 29, 2010, and received the following response:

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent. To contact the White House, please visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Thank you.
———————-
The same letter was sent to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office on September 1, 2010, and received the following response:

We have received your e-mail.

Your message will be routed to the appropriate person. Someone will get back to you as soon as possible.

All the best,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio & the staff of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

https://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17 ... ent-obama/

Hesitated to bring this up because don't want Realist to start panicking again, we both just got our anti-anxiety meds reduced when we heard Laity's rehearing won't be until October.

Unless -- oh no -- what if SCOTUS comes back? Has that ever happened, that SCOTUS came back after their term to deal with a case of phenomenal importance? Are they allowed to come back if they chose to? /sweating bullets

[noblepa]

Bonus:

BTW, persons born in Puerto Rico are NOT eligible to be President or VP. Puerto Rico is NOT a fully incorporated and organized territory of the United States.

Puerto Ricans have had birthright citizenship for over a century now.

Wasn't there an exchange between a Puerta-Rican born congressman and one of the Supremes (Brier or Kennedy, maybe?) in which the congressman semi-jokingly asked if he could be president, to which the justice replied that he thought so?

[bob]

Our champion Bob & Rev Dr Laity Esq have been going at it at The New American, whatever that is

"The New American" is a publication of the John Birch Society. So, yeah, unsurprising it attracts the xenophobes.

But good to see the Bircher commenters are just like the P&E commenters: they get bored with Harris and return to Obama's sins, even though he hasn't been the president for over four years now.

* * *

Wasn't there an exchange between a Puerta-Rican born congressman and one of the Supremes (Brier or Kennedy, maybe?) in which the congressman semi-jokingly asked if he could be president, to which the justice replied that he thought so?

Sorta, and it is part of the birther lore. Thomas said SCOTUS "was evading the issue."

In 2010, Thomas and a member of Congress (Jose Serrano) were obviously riffing about the natural-born citizenship status of those born in Puerto Rico. Birthers insist Thomas was serious; Laity recently said Thomas' laughing was just for plausible deniability.

[northland10]

...even though he hasn't been the president for over four years now.

RobertLaity Jon Smetana • a day ago
Obama WAS "never President".

Laity has 20 bigillion degrees and is a lawyer like Lincoln so he knows what he's talking about.

[Foggy]

Obama is going to be reinstated in August.