Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#276

Post by bob »

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:As of today I have sent my proposed amendment to (70) U.S. Senators. I am going to send out the last (30) senate letters in the next couple days. Then I will finish sending EVERY congressman in Congress a letter on the matter. After that, I plan to contact the (50) State legislatures. This project is ongoing. More to come.
No word on whether Laity also is including a sheriff's kit.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#277

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:53 pm P&E comment:
Laity wrote:As of today I have sent my proposed amendment to (70) U.S. Senators. I am going to send out the last (30) senate letters in the next couple days. Then I will finish sending EVERY congressman in Congress a letter on the matter. After that, I plan to contact the (50) State legislatures. This project is ongoing. More to come.
No word on whether Laity also is including a sheriff's kit.
I'm glad he has something to keep him busy. Idle hands and all that.

:lol:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#278

Post by Luke »

Good start! But to really put the pressure on the Senators, House members, and Legislatures, surely Rev Dr Laity Esq knows he needs We The People to pressure them. Therefore, he needs to send a personal letter with the proposed change to every US citizen. The Census Bureau says the population of the United States is 331,449,281. If he could get, say, 25 letters a day out, that would just be 13,257,971 days. Get going, Laity!
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#279

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:53 pm P&E comment:
Laity wrote:As of today I have sent my proposed amendment to (70) U.S. Senators. I am going to send out the last (30) senate letters in the next couple days. Then I will finish sending EVERY congressman in Congress a letter on the matter. After that, I plan to contact the (50) State legislatures. This project is ongoing. More to come.
No word on whether Laity also is including a sheriff's kit.
He's sending it to all the Senators? Why waste the time and money on sending it to the left. All he needs is to target some potentially supportive folks and not bother trying to get the support of folks like Senator Duckworth. He need only start with the Stupid in the Senate caucus, Hawley, Johnson, Rand Paul, and Tubberville among others. He might want to skip over Cruz. Then he need only move on to the Crazy in Congress Caucus (CCC, just like the Council of Conservative Citizens) or their larger group, the Crazy Critters in Congress Party.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#280

Post by bob »

The short answer is Laity is stupid, and he confuses action for achievement.

Recall Laity's Plan B was working with some unspecified member of Congress. So this latest action suggests Plan B fell through.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#281

Post by northland10 »

Hard to figure that he could not find at least one Congress Crazy to jump aboard and could not identify them right off. His cluelessness nears Orly's. The loss of King, (Racist-IA) must have been a real blow.

The 2-parent requirement is probably the deal breaker. None of the previous and current attempts to end birthright citizenship ever relied on 2 parents. Even most xenophobes don't go that far.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#282

Post by Luke »

:crying: Realist, just had the doctor phone in our anti-anxiety medications again. We waz misled thinking we didn't have to PANIC over the Summer! Dammit, legal scholar Joseph DeMaio posted a "brief" article and concludes The Hammer could come down "August 2nd or 23rd, 2021 or perhaps September 10th, 2021"!! And as Mike Lindell said over the weekend, T**** will be back in the White House on August 13, 2021!! And T**** is gonna be pissed, the Big Obot Roundup will be happening! This is turning into a monstrous disaster for us, Realist! Shakes fist at sky: "Damn you DeMaio and your flawless logic!" :crying:


:panic:

USSC “Opinions Relating to Orders” and “Summer Order Lists”
WHO HAS "THE FINAL SAY" ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY?
28 mins ago by Joseph DeMaio

(Jul. 6, 2021) — In addition to writing majority opinions, dissenting opinions and concurring opinions, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes prepare and issue “Opinions Relating to Orders.” These opinions constitute the view of one or more of the Justices relating to the summary disposition of cases. The most common instance of a summary disposition of a case before the Court is that of a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari.

A Justice who wishes to concur in such a denial, dissent to the denial (or, for that matter, to the granting of certiorari) or simply comment on the status of the case may prepare and issue his/her personal opinion regarding the action of the Court. Your humble servant made such a suggestion here with respect to the case of Laity v. Harris, USSC Docket No. 20-1503. With that brief backdrop, let us briefly revisit the case.

The litigation, of course, involves a challenge by one Robert Laity to the constitutional “natural born Citizen” eligibility of Kamala Devi Harris to serve as vice-president. His petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – which had affirmed the dismissal of his case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for lack of his “standing” to bring and maintain the action – was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 2021.

The denial came without any comment from a Justice by way of either a “statement,” “concurrence” or “dissent” in the form of an “Opinion Relating to Orders.” In particular, there was no statement, concurrence or dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas. One could thus conclude that no Justice, including Justice Thomas, disagreed with any aspect of the denial.

Faithful P&E readers will recall that Justice Thomas has in the past stated – jokingly, according to some – that with regard to the constitutional “natural born Citizen” eligibility question under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the Court is “evading that one.”

Whether Justice Thomas was “joking” or not – and regardless of whether one views the position of the Court as “evading” the issue or merely “avoiding” the issue awaiting the “right case,” – the fact remains that while the Court has mentioned the term “natural born Citizen” many times in other contexts, it has never, to this day, accepted jurisdiction over a case or controversy directly addressing the Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 “natural born Citizen” bona fides of either a sitting or yet-to-be installed president or vice-president.

While there may be a variety of reasons for this circumstance including, for example, lack of “standing,” “separation of powers,” “political question” or garden variety “the issue is too radioactive,” the fact remains that in the absence of a definitive Supreme Court decision, the question of who can – and more importantly, who cannot – serve as president or vice-president under the Constitution has been sloughed off to the opinions of lower state and federal courts, the Congressional Research Service (more on that later) and a bevy of law professors and former Solicitors General.

If that collection of “authorities” – as opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court itself – is by default to be deemed as having the “final say” on the interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause, then the Court, at minimum, should articulate that reality. Lacking that declaration, the issue will continue to surface every four years (or more frequently) into the future.

Following the denial of certiorari in his case, Mr. Laity timely filed a “Petition for Rehearing,” but as of the Court’s “recess” date, July 2, 2021, no action had been taken on the petition. As noted by Chief Justice Roberts in his July 1, 2021 recess announcement, the current term of the Court will be in recess from July 2, 2021 “until the first Monday in October 2021, at which time the October 2020 Term of the Court will be adjourned, and the October 2021 Term of the Court will begin, as provided by law.” Stated otherwise, the Court is today only in “recess.”

As it turns out, there are additional events which can take place during the recess, including the issuance of “summer order lists.” These lists normally address “… actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters.” (Emphasis added) For the current 2020-2021 Term, those summer order lists are presently scheduled to be released on August 2, 2021, August 23, 2021 and September 10, 2021.

Accordingly, it may be well before the Court’s “long conference” in October – as predicted by commenter Wilson here – that the Court takes action on the Laity Petition for Rehearing. The timing of that event aside, the question surfaces: might there yet be another opportunity for one of the Justices – say…, Justice Clarence Thomas – to provide some much-needed guidance, perhaps even clarity, on the question of the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” restriction in the Constitution?

While the denial of a petition for rehearing following the denial of its related petition for certiorari is technically not itself a “summary disposition” of the case at issue – the original denial of certiorari constituting that “summary disposition” – there would seem to be no rule precluding the preparation and issuance of a “statement” as an “Opinion Relating to Orders” and confined to the Court’s action regarding the petition for rehearing in order to provide guidance on the topic. Indeed, a statement might also issue in the event that the Court grants the petition for rehearing.

Moreover, while such a statement would not constitute a “decision” or “holding” of the Court, but instead would be the personal view of a particular Justice or Justices akin to “dictum” if uttered in a “live” case, at least it would be a “signal” to potential future eligibility challengers possessed of “standing” where that particular Justice (or Justices) stood on the topic.

Stated otherwise, depending on the content of the “statement,” and assuming for the sake of argument one were to be issued, it could operate to either (a) dissuade future challenges, or (b) invite future challenges from persons possessed of the requisite standing thus far missing in all past attempts. Your humble servant addressed this issue with regard to the “standing” of former Vice-President Pence here.

In fact, Justice Thomas has authored no fewer than twelve (12) such “opinions relating to orders” in the 2020-2021 Term, including opinions consisting of “statements” as to the disposition of a case, “concurrences” in connection with a grant of certiorari and “dissents” with regard to denials of certiorari.

Those cases ranged from matters involving states’ rights regarding marijuana in Colorado to Chicago’s use of eminent domain to the taxation of gambling devices in Oklahoma “Indian Country.” But in no instance, lamentably, did Justice Thomas address the substantive eligibility issues raised in Laity v. Harris. Indeed, even if such a hypothetical statement addressed only the “standing” issue, it would still contribute to clarification of the presently muddled legal landscape.

Moreover, an argument could be made that the substantive issues raised in the Laity case regarding presidential and vice-presidential “natural born Citizen” eligibility are at least as important as whether the exercise by Chicago of the power of eminent domain under Kelo v. New London, 545 U. S. 469 (2005) was appropriate. This is particularly so in light of the fact that Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented from the denial of certiorari in the Eychaner eminent domain case, commenting that the decision in Kelo “… was wrong the day it was decided. And it remains wrong today.” See Thomas dissenting Opinion Relating to Order in USSC Doc. No. 20-1214 at 2.

If, as many would argue, the Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is, purportedly, dispositive on the presidential eligibility issue, a statement from a Supreme Court Justice in the nature of an opinion relating to the order of certiorari denial in Laity v. Harris stating as much would remove a lot of the present uncertainty. Rest assured, faithful P&E readers, your humble servant strongly contends that the Wong Kim Ark decision has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. But unlike Clarence Thomas, he is not a Justice of the Supreme Court.

There are many who would argue that various decisions of the Supreme Court; of lower federal courts; and of certain state courts – from United States v. Wong Kim Ark to Hollander v. McCain to Tisdale v. Obama to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana – are either wrongly applied to the eligibility question or are flat wrong as a matter of law. And this doesn’t even address the “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” linguistic ellipsis antics of the Congressional Research Service discussed here.

Yet these are the non-Supreme Court “authorities” relied upon to establish “the last word” on one of the core provisions of the Constitution: the “natural born Citizen” restriction of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5. Clarification beyond a mere “certiorari denied” notification would be a big improvement over what now passes for “settled” law on the issue, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the Laity Petition for Rehearing.

In any event, if any such “opinion relating to orders” in Laity v. Harris were to be contemplated, it might well be expected sometime around August 2nd or 23rd, 2021 or perhaps September 10th, 2021. Whether or not Justice Thomas or any other Justice would consider putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) to generate such an opinion remains to be seen and, moreover, it would be unwise to bet the farm on that happening. Nonetheless, even if such a statement resembled dictum, it certainly could not hurt and might actually help bring some clarity and stability to the question.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#283

Post by bob »

DeMaio is correct(!) that SCOTUS sometimes issues summer orders lists. And for 2020, for example, those lists did contain some denials of petitions for rehearing. Notably, they did not contain any grants for a petition for rehearing.

So it is possible that Laity's petition for rehearing will be denied on August 2, August 23, or September 10.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#284

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 5:40 pm DeMaio is correct(!) that SCOTUS sometimes issues summer orders lists. And for 2020, for example, those lists did contain some denials of petitions for rehearing. Notably, they did not contain any grants for a petition for rehearing.

So it is possible that Laity's petition for rehearing will be denied on August 2, August 23, or September 10.
In fact, Justice Thomas has authored no fewer than twelve (12) such “opinions relating to orders” in the 2020-2021 Term, including opinions consisting of “statements” as to the disposition of a case, “concurrences” in connection with a grant of certiorari and “dissents” with regard to denials of certiorari.
Do they read here? I think I mentioned that Thomas tends to author opinions related to orders. That said, I am a bit at a loss to figure out why he would do not do it on the original cert petition but would do it for a petition for rehearing which is essentially the same. I guess another "any day now" moment.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#285

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:42 pmDo they read here?
Probably. :wave: But it also might have been mentioned in a comment.
That said, I am a bit at a loss to figure out why he would do not do it on the original cert petition but would do it for a petition for rehearing which is essentially the same.
Thomas won't; DeMaio is enamored by his own voice.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#286

Post by northland10 »

This is why I never bother to comment over there. Somebody is bound to make the same comment there anyway so why bother creating a burner email.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#287

Post by bob »

P&E: U.S. Supreme Court Updates Harris Eligibility Case Docket:
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged receipt of a petition for rehearing in the case of Laity v. Harris, 20-1503, which claims that former U.S. Senator from California Kamala Harris is not eligible to serve as the nation’s vice president.
Laity's petition for rehearing was filed three weeks ago. :yawn:

Bonus:
Separately, Laity is in the process of contacting all members of the U.S. Congress regarding the proposal of a constitutional amendment defining “natural born Citizen” as, “A person born in the United States to parents who are both United States Citizens themselves.”



As of this writing, Laity has reported he sent formal requests via the U.S. Postal Service to all 100 US Senators.
:towel:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#288

Post by Luke »

OMG this is SO EXCITING! Thank you, Bob! This is like Christmas. Realist and I were so panicked that SCOTUS would return from the Summer recess to take up this rehearing, we've been texting almost every day about it. But if Laity is taking all his valuable time to write, mail merge (wonder how long that took him), pay for postage (hope they were Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested), and send these brilliant letters, deep down, he knows his SCOTUS Petition for Rehearing going to be DENIED. Hope Realist saw this and also breathed a huge sigh of relief.


Certified.JPG
Certified.JPG (54.95 KiB) Viewed 1974 times


BUT we're not out of the woods yet: SCOTUS could return... or the Laity Amendment (as future generations will call it) could happen within only SEVEN YEARS! So mark your calendars for 2028. Think of all the articles Sharon Rondeau can publish over those next seven years. And, of course, this will mean Total Birther Vindication and it will only have taken twenty years. Good thing the birthers are young and in excellent health.
It has been accepted that Congress may, in proposing an amendment, set a reasonable time limit for its ratification. Beginning with the Eighteenth Amendment, save for the Nineteenth, Congress has included language in all proposals stating that the amendment should be inoperative unless ratified within seven years.
Ratification. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... tification
Guess Rharon sees that only #Birther content juices her comments. Hopefully there will be tons of coverage and multi-part stories about this fabulous "Laity's Big Plan B"!!

Here's the full PDF in JPG format*. Look at the swagger and determination in that signature! Rev Dr Laity Esq is taking names and beautifully laying out that bad boy Amendment. Maybe Laity dreams this letter will be enclosed in glass cases someday as another historical document like the Declaration of Independence. Dream big, Laity:

proposed-constitutional-amendm.jpg
proposed-constitutional-amendm.jpg (147.98 KiB) Viewed 1974 times

Can't wait to see all the replies Laity receives. Hope each thoughtful, positive reply from folks like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown will get a full P&E article!

By 2030, perhaps school kids will learn the names George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert C. Laity.


* Beware the weasels at Adobe. My partner got a free 7-day trial to reduce/optimize some PDFs during tax season, he missed the cutoff and now we're stuck with a one-year subscription for $14.99 a month. To cancel, they charge a 2-month+ cancellation fee (over $30) and don't even let you use the services for those 2 months. There are some good features, but we'd never have paid this much, we don't use it enough.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#289

Post by northland10 »

I was going to try to find a humorous way to say this, but, I can't think straight so I will leave it at.. God Laity's a moron.

1. How amazingly brilliant to send your letter to people listed in your letter as being ineligible (Cruz, Rubio, and Duckworth). And now, 1 conservative, 1 liberal, and 1 pond scum will actually all agree about something (Orlylicious, that makes 3 opposites agreeing this weekend). Laity's a moron.

2. Um... I don't recall Duckworth or Schwarzenegger ever running for President. I guess the public talking about it (or even wishing they could if they were not born in Austria) means they were running for it. Laity is a moron.

Maybe Laity thinks you have to be NBC to play the part of President on The Simpsons Movie.

Laity is a moron.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#290

Post by Reality Check »

I checked the SCOTUS docket for Laity's case yesterday and I could have sworn that it said Laity's Petition for Rehearing was "DISTRIBUTED". Today that is missing.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#291

Post by northland10 »

Reality Check wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:07 pm I checked the SCOTUS docket for Laity's case yesterday and I could have sworn that it said Laity's Petition for Rehearing was "DISTRIBUTED". Today that is missing.
I don't remember seeing it when I checked Friday night or sometime Saturday (don't remember which) but certpool.com shows it as distributed on 8 July. It does not say which conference, just DISTRIBUTED, which is sort of odd.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#292

Post by northland10 »

I just looked at the order list from the prior years and it appears they dispose of rehearing motions throughout the summer either on a miscellaneous order or on an order list. In checking the docket on some of the denials, all that was listed was DISTRIBUTED. Somebody P&E did mention they have denied rehearing requests over the summer, and in my checking, it is not just a few. Unless it gets bounced for other reasons, I suspect it will be denied by the beginning of August, maybe earlier.
Edit: Now the SCOTUS docket says DISTRIBUTED. Maybe a refresh or caching issue.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#293

Post by Luke »

Just KNEW there was a post in this topic; my phone lit up like a Christmas tree with like 20 texts from Realist! Told him hold on before he picks up our prescriptions for Xylazine.

Which is it? Dismissal by August, or the Court might come back into session to have the Rehearing in person and follow immediately with Laity's "trial"? Rev Dr Laity Esq has sent 100 letters and he's trying but can't fool us, they are going to be WITNESSES for the SCOTUS "trial", aren't they???

Come on, be honest with us.

And the experts at The Post and Snowflake are just making it worser!
Jonathan David Mooers says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:18 AM
AMERICA 1620- 2016 [Trump]: from self-government experiment to selfish-government reality

This is our U.S. Government today:
https://welovetrump.com/2021/07/10/tuck ... tter_randy

Our gangster garbage government today, particularly after THE WHOREABLE Mussolini Pelossolini allowed Obama to usurp the presIDency on 08-28-08, is MILLIONS of MINIONS that promote their personal selfish POLITICS so as to over-rule, and ridicule, their sworn Constitutional obligations of national POLICING AND POLICYING.

We the Wee People down here on Main Street USA could normally fire our selfish government leaders at the ballot box, BUT SYSTEMIC CANDIDATE+VOTER+ELECTION FRAUD has even taken that weapon away from us!

Yet, We the People still remain KING…because we own everything! Our U.S. Government works for us at our consent, so let’s all rise-up and look-down on our U.S. Government at every opportunity and put our leaders in their subordinated places, just as THE HONORABLE Mr. Laity is doing with attorney-criminals BIDEN II+OBAMA II+KAMALA,TOO, with The P&E’s help EVERYDAY since 08-28-09.

Reply
FRAN AUSTIN says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 7:41 PM
KAMALA HARRIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR VICE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY (AMEND, 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5) AND FOR MANY OTHER REASONS, INCLUDING A FRAUDULENT ELECTION (2020). SHE IS, AT BEST, AN ANCHOR BABY, WHOSE PARENTS WERE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HER BIRTH. HER MOTHER WAS INDIAN (INDIA) AND HER FATHER IS A JAMAICAN SLAVE OWNER. SHE IS NOT BLACK, A POLITICAL TOOL. SHE MET BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AT BERKELEY (HOME OF ANTIFA), TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND HE ENCOURAGED HER TO PROCEED ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, AS HE DID, BECAUSE HE GOT AWAY WITH IT AND STILL IS. OBAMA IS CIA, SATANIST AND IS RUNNING THE “O’BIDEN” FRAUDULENT ELECTION, AND “PRESIDENCY” ALONG WITH OTHERS. OUR NATION IS NOW IN A “FREEFALL”. A FRAUDULENT ELECTION TOOK PLACE IN 2008, AND WE ARE STILL EXPERIENCING THE CONSEQUENCES, AS OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN CALLED OUT, HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS TREASON, OR REPENTED. HE ALSO DID HIS BEST TO DESTROY TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FROM THE BEGINNING (SATANISM). THIS IS A SPIRITUAL BATTLE. BEGUN DECADES AGO, BUT CARRIED ON BY OBAMA AS LYNCHPIN IN OUR LIFETIME. AMERICA MUST REPENT (2 CHRONICLES 7:14) AND TURN TO THE LORD TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT AND RIGHTEOUS, AS ONLY HE CAN.

Reply
Ed Sunderland says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:44 PM
I disagree with DeMaio saying this,” the fact remains that in the absence of a definitive Supreme Court decision, the question of who can – and more importantly, who cannot – serve as president or vice-president under the Constitution has been sloughed off to the opinions of lower state and federal courts, the Congressional Research Service (more on that later) and a bevy of law professors and former Solicitors General.

Supreme Court Justice Morrison Waite said “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

This is almost word for word what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations saying “The natives or natural-born citizens, are children born of parents, who are citizens in the country”. Further, the definition is exposed in many other supreme court decisions, text in the Congressional Globe confirms, and other sources confirm NBC applies to children born in the country to citizen parents. After WW2 an American citizen was prosecuted for spying and this woman was particularly admonished for her misdeeds saying it was worse because she was a natural-born citizen. The Encyclopedia Americana also exposes the definition clearly.

The murky distortion of natural-born citizen fits those who have not looked at these current texts or have an agenda. Indeed, the US Senate wrote SR-511 being a hall pass for John McCain to run for president in 2008 which although wrong admitted in part McCain’s parents (plural) were citizens (plural). Obama didn’t even pass that hall pass text and shame on the senate for not calling Obama on the carpet for that unprecedented election fraud that perpetuated into today branding the US Senate as inconsiderate arrogant sloth. As much as I yelled at my TV after hearing that screaming “what about Obama?”, our elected fraternity of nothing did exactly that, nothing, and the Obama/Biden crime spree continues to this day.

Reply
Henry Wilson says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 7:19 PM
S.R. 511 was a non-binding resolution; it had no legal effect.

Vattel never wrote the words “natural-born citizen.”

Reply
Nikita's_UN_Shoe says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:38 AM
What did Vattel write, instead?

Reply
Sharon Rondeau says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:17 PM

From Joseph DeMaio:

Wilson states: “Vattel never wrote the words ‘natural born citizen.’“

As discussed in more detail here (Natural Born Citizens and USSC Docket 20-1503 – The Post & Email (thepostemail.com)), while Emmerich de Vattel may not have grouped the English words “natural born citizen” immediately together, :lol: Founder John Jay did (To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787 (archives.gov)).

Moreover, the title to § 212 of the 1758 French edition of Le Droit des Gens is “Des Citoyens et Naturels,” (“The citizens and natives”). De Vattel states, in French, that “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens” or, in English (Chitty 1833 edition), “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those [who are] born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

While it may be complicated doctoral thesis rocket science to some, to John Jay it was not: he was “hinting” to George Washington that, even if expressed in French, eligibility of the commander-in-chief of the American army to the presidency should be restricted not to an “indigène” or a generic “citoyen,” but to someone born here to parents who were already citizens, i.e., a “natural born Citizen.” It is that simple.

Reply
Michael says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 11:01 PM
Thank you Robert Laity for your diligence in holding feet to the fire.
The Lord God lead the way, for the cause of liberty and truth is of him.
Ed Sunderland is right over the target. Great aim.
Thank you Sharon and The Post & Email for helping to shine the light
to dispel the darkness of Barack Hussein Obama’s ongoing election fraud from 2008 and 2012.
“The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.” Proverbs 12:19 KJB

Stephen Hiller says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 12:02 PM
The Constitution is just way too difficult to understand. It would take at least a 2nd or even possibly a 3rd grade education in ENGLISH !!! “Lawyer-speak” may be taught at Harvard or Yale, but the Constitution was written in simple language.

Reply
Veranda Cruz says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 10:33 AM
What office did Arnold Schwarzenegger run for?

Reply
Henry Wilson says:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 7:21 PM
Schwarzenegger served as California’s governor from 2003 to 2011. He has run for no other elected office.

Reply
Veranda Cruz says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM
Does California governor have to a natural born citizen?

Why is Schwarzenegger included in Laity’s letter?

I wonder what Cruz and Rubio will think.

Reply
Sharon Rondeau says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:01 AM
Governors do not have to be “natural born Citizens.” That requirement was reserved by the Founders for the president only.

Veranda Cruz says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:13 AM
Ms. Rondeau,

Why is Schwarzenegger’s name on the letter?

I don’t remember him running for President or Vice-President.

Sharon Rondeau says:
Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 12:41 PM
Every so often his name would be mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, even though as a naturalized citizen, he was not eligible.

We need some straight answers here, we can't take much more panicking! Realist and I can't keep screaming at our TeeVees like Ed Sunderland. :smoking:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 2178
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
Contact:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#294

Post by Reality Check »

northland10 wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:34 pm :snippity:
I don't remember seeing it when I checked Friday night or sometime Saturday (don't remember which) but certpool.com shows it as distributed on 8 July. It does not say which conference, just DISTRIBUTED, which is sort of odd.
Yes, now it says DISTRIBUTED without a date again. It might have been a caching issue. I think I checked on my phone yesterday and PC earlier today.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#295

Post by Luke »

RC and Northland, are you trying to make us panic even more!!?? Realist is already a bundle of nerves and now this! :lol:

Just opened the magnificent case from #BirtherWatch https://www.protopage.com/birthers and it's there...

Distributed.JPG
Distributed.JPG (68.97 KiB) Viewed 1774 times

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... -1503.html


Laity's book Imposters in the Oval Office is still on Amazon, its Best Sellers Rank: #4,348,507 in Books
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#296

Post by bob »

P&E comments:
I am one of those people who meant it when I swore an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. In my case I swore such an oath FOUR different times. When I joined the Navy. When I got hired as an employee of the U.S. Government. When I became a Constitutional Officer of the State of NY and when I became a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Being the founder and President of Society for the Preservation of our American Republic also makes it my business to defend our liberties.

ALL Citizens of the US have a civic duty to defend the United States from its enemies, foreign and/or domestic.
IIRC, the "constitutional officer" refers to ... being a notary. :yankyank:
Veranda Cruz wrote:What office did Arnold Schwarzenegger run for?
Laity wrote:Schwarzenegger actively sought a Constitutional Amendment to change the Article II requirement that he be a “Natural Born Citizen” so that he could run for the Presidency. He is NOT eligible.'
So Laity's assertion to every senator that Schwarzenegger had run for the presidency was ... wrong? :think:

Bonus:
Laity wrote:[Vattel] translated the Law of Nations from Latin to French. “Les naturels, ou indigenes” refers to The Naturals or indigenous people of a country. The phrase “Les naturels, ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nes de la pays de parents citoyens” means The naturals or indigenous people ARE those born IN a country to parentS who are both citizenS” {Emphasis mine}.
"No Person except an Indigenous Person ... shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#297

Post by northland10 »

Wait... actively seeking a Constitutional amendment to make you eligible would be somehow illegally running for President? Laity is a moron. If you don't like the current qualifications in the Constitution, you have it changed with an amendment. That is how the hallowed founders wrote the thing. Laity is a moron.

Actually, I had assumed the Arnold was not the one really pushing the change but those who wanted to make it possible for him to run. He probably would have considered running though I think he may have decided playing politics suck.

Oh, and then that stupid "I took an oath" crap the birthers love to through around. Well, guess what moron, I had to take a similar one when signing my teaching certificates (and updates). That does not make me extra special. As it so happens, there is another oath I used to say weekly that I still take as seriously as I can (though as with everything, fall short many times). It starts with "On my honor" and yes, my work against the birthers is very much about duty to God and Country (and duty to other people).

I believe in protecting the truth and what the Constitution actually says, not my own personal agenda.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#298

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:53 pm Wait... actively seeking a Constitutional amendment to make you eligible would be somehow illegally running for President? Laity is a moron. If you don't like the current qualifications in the Constitution, you have it changed with an amendment. That is how the hallowed founders wrote the thing. Laity is a moron.

Actually, I had assumed the Arnold was not the one really pushing the change but those who wanted to make it possible for him to run. He probably would have considered running though I think he may have decided playing politics suck.
Because birthers can never admit to ever being wrong, Laity has to double down on "others wanted him run." Or "how dare he amend our sacred Constitution," while Laity's touting his own proposed constitutional amendment.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5589
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#299

Post by Luke »

Another body blow -- Somebody needs to let Kamala know right away to have a GO BAG ready. Laity is on GETTR! https://gettr.com/user/robertlaity

5 followers. Look who one is (hard to believe it's really Melissa, but looks like their verification checkmark ripoff).

Melissa Carone Ⓥ @MelissaCarone
Ron DeSantis 2024 @RonDeSantis24
Candace Owens 2024 @CandaceOwens24
Tomi Lahren @TomlLahren
Егор Казаков @uzbekvk

Laity Gettr 2.JPG
Laity Gettr 2.JPG (70.23 KiB) Viewed 1623 times

Laity Gettr.JPG
Laity Gettr.JPG (84 KiB) Viewed 1623 times

Laity Pic.png
Laity Pic.png (85.55 KiB) Viewed 1623 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
chancery
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

Re: Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#300

Post by chancery »

Would someone please remind me what we know about Laity's military record?
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”