Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[Luke]

Well but if it's settled, why did Rev Dr Laity Esq Supplicant need to have his huge letter-writing campaign?

HUGE BREAKING NEWS!

Dammit, Realist and I were hoping for a nice, relaxing Christmas. Now we're PANICKED again! Laity is on the loose! Fabulous redactions. Super idea for a rubber stamp.

Laity Completes “natural born Citizen” Mail Campaign
3 hours ago by Sharon Rondeau
Were the Founding Fathers “Sovereign Citizens?”

(Dec. 17, 2021) — On Wednesday New York State citizen and registered voter Robert C. Laity completed a letter-writing campaign to all 535 members of Congress advocating for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define the term of art, “natural born Citizen” found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 as one of three sole requirements for the president and commander-in-chief.

“My first letter was written in June To Brian Higgins (my Rep). The last was written last night and is in the mail,” Laity told The Post & Email on Thursday, although he informed us of his effort at the time it was launched.

His first letter to his own congressman, Brian Higgins, reads:



6-19-21 Higgins.JPG



(Personal information redacted)
“I revised the letter a bit during the last (6) months as you will see,” Laity wrote in his email. “The letter to Clyburn, and some others, includes an L.B. Johnson Executive Order regarding the duty of Federal employees to conduct themselves ethically.”

The final letter sent Wednesday to Rep. James Clyburn (SC-6) reads:



12-15-21 Clyburn.JPG



A letter December 6, 2021 letter Laity received from Higgins refers to “birthright citizenship” and the 14th Amendment rather than “natural born Citizen,” a distinction Laity made in his response.



12-6-21 From Higgins.JPG



12-16-21 To Higgins.JPG



12-16-21 To Higgins 2.JPG



Laity has long advocated for the definition of “natural born Citizen” as an individual born in the United States to parents who were at the time U.S. citizens. Since 2008, he has filed lawsuits and ballot challenges with regard to the presidential candidacies of Barack Hussein Obama II; former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; current sitting vice president Kamala Harris; U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz; U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio; and others as mentioned in his letter to Higgins.

In addition, Laity has petitioned the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) as to its error in contending that the constitutional citizenship requirement for the nation’s chief executive is “born a citizen” rather than “natural born Citizen,” as is stated in Article II.

The stated requirement remains the same as of press time.

Requirements to Hold Office

This table lists the required citizenship, age, residency and statute to hold a statewide office.
OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
President of the United States Born a citizen 35 years 14 years in country United States Constitution Art. II § 1

https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/12/17 ... -campaign/


Rev Dr Laity Esq's "BIG 'PLAN B'" is steaming along! So many letters, so much effort.

[Ben-Prime]

Well but if it's settled, why did Rev Dr Laity Esq Supplicant need to have his huge letter-writing campaign?

Rev Dr Laity Esq's "BIG 'PLAN B'" is steaming along! So many letters, so much effort.

As a plan, it is both big and steaming, I will grant you that.

[bob]

P&E comments:

[Vattel] wrote: “Les Naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont, nes dans le pays de Parents Citoyens”. “Naturels… indigenes” ARE those Natural Born Indigenous people of a society. The phrase in English is The Natural Born or Indigenous people ARE those [and ONLY those] who are BORN in the country to parents [plural] who are both Citizens [Plural] of said country.

* * *

And do note historically in the colonies, the French word “naturels” was translated in communications between France and the colonies as “natural born”.

So, according to the birther brain trust, both "naturels" and "indigenes" means "native born citizen."



Bonus:

Vattel did not write the book. He TRANSLATED it into French.

[Atticus Finch]

Vattel did not write the "Law of Nations"? But only translated into French? Wow, that is beyond stupid even for a birther.

[qbawl]

Vattel did not write the "Law of Nations"? But only translated into French? Wow, that is beyond stupid even for a birther.

What language did he supposedly translate it from‽ Please tell me English.

[realist]

Vattel did not write the "Law of Nations"? But only translated into French? Wow, that is beyond stupid even for a birther.

What language did he supposedly translate it from‽ Please tell me English.

I think he began translating from Latin.

Edit:

Vattel’s The Law of Nations was principally influenced by Wolff’s Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractum (The Law of Nations according to the Scientific Method). Indeed, Vattel’s work began by translating Wolff’s text from Latin, and adding his own thoughts. Vattel’s work was also greatly influenced by Hugo Grotius. https://classicsofstrategy.com/2015/08/ ... ttel-1758/

[realist]

From a prior (I don't think he's rejoined) member, who is and expert.

https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmar ... he-french/

[northland10]

I have watched birthers tell Lupin, the French lawyer, that he does not understand French, the law, or history.

I have also watched them explain away their lack of evidence that the founders chose specifically their interpretation because it was just "common sense."

My favorite excuse was that the founders kept the change a secret so as to not upset the new nation and cause more issues. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find evidence means it really happened.

[Gregg]

You listen to these phucknutz long enough and you start to want to tell them that the only people who are really natural born citizens are Cherokee, Navajo, Apache etc... and all these phucken hillbillies need to go back to where ever the boat that brought them came from.

[bob]

P&E comment:

On March 5, 2022 Alan Dershowitz corresponded in an Email addressed to Tom Arnold, a regular reader and commenter on the P & E.

In that Email, which Mr. Arnold forwarded to me, Professor Dershowitz is quoted as saying:

“It does not matter constitutionally where [Obama] was born, as long as he was born to a Mother who is a U.S. Citizen”. In saying this, Dershowitz joins his fellow errant Harvard “Constitutionalists” Clement and Katyal.

As I told Clement and Katyal years ago. I informed Professor Dershowitz that his assertion is not based in legal fact and long established jurisprudence and also told him that he is wrong. I understand that Mr. Arnold also replied to Dershowitz concurring with me that Dershowitz is not correct.

So much comedy gold:

Dershowitz is actually wrong because, under the laws in effect at the time, had Obama not been born in the United States, he would not have been a U.S. citizen. So Obama's place of birth was ("constitutionally") important.

Laity' telling highly successful attorneys they are wrong is amusing but also unsurprising. Shirley Laity's opinions were given all due consideration, i.e., none.

But the best part is Dershowitz's being reduced to corresponding with (ungrateful) birthers.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

P&E comment:

On March 5, 2022 Alan Dershowitz corresponded in an Email addressed to Tom Arnold, a regular reader and commenter on the P & E.

In that Email, which Mr. Arnold forwarded to me, Professor Dershowitz is quoted as saying:

“It does not matter constitutionally where [Obama] was born, as long as he was born to a Mother who is a U.S. Citizen”. In saying this, Dershowitz joins his fellow errant Harvard “Constitutionalists” Clement and Katyal.

As I told Clement and Katyal years ago. I informed Professor Dershowitz that his assertion is not based in legal fact and long established jurisprudence and also told him that he is wrong. I understand that Mr. Arnold also replied to Dershowitz concurring with me that Dershowitz is not correct.

So much comedy gold:

Dershowitz is actually wrong because, under the laws in effect at the time, had Obama not been born in the United States, he would not have been a U.S. citizen. So Obama's place of birth was ("constitutionally") important.

Laity' telling highly successful attorneys they are wrong is amusing but also unsurprising. Shirley Laity's opinions were given all due consideration, i.e., none.

But the best part is Dershowitz's being reduced to corresponding with (ungrateful) birthers.

Actually, this is incorrect. Under Hawai`ian law, Obama's mother was not legally married at the time of his birth, as Obama's father was legally married at the time he married Obama's mother. That means Obama's birth-right citizenship would have fallen under a different section of the law, and his mother would have had the necessary qualifications to pass on citizenship.

[bob]

Actually, this is incorrect. Under Hawai`ian law, Obama's mother was not legally married at the time of his birth, as Obama's father was legally married at the time he married Obama's mother. That means Obama's birth-right citizenship would have fallen under a different section of the law, and his mother would have had the necessary qualifications to pass on citizenship.

U.S. citizenship is determined by federal law, and the parents' marital status was irrelevant under the INA of 1952.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

You didn't read the full chapter:

PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952

TITLE III—NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
CHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION

CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

SEC. 309.

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, on or after the effective date of this Act, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STA ... -Pg163.pdf

[bob]

Except there's a marriage certificate for Obama's parents.

It would be a weird situation indeed if foreign-born Obama sought to show his parents' state-certified marriage wasn't legally valid, and then a federal court agreed a putative marriage isn't considered a marriage for citizenship purposes when other benefits flow from putative (but invalid) marriages.

[realist]

Interesting.

I am enjoying the discussion.

So just a quick question, if I may.

One of the "big deal" birther issues was that if Obama had been born in Kenya, then his mother (under the law at the time) would not have been able to confer citizenship because she was too young (AIR, 4-5 months shy of 19). Was there ever any validity to that? I do remember reading (something) they came up with that basically confirmed that.

[bob]

One of the "big deal" birther issues was that if Obama had been born in Kenya, then his mother (under the law at the time) would not have been able to confer citizenship because she was too young (AIR, 4-5 months shy of 19). Was there ever any validity to that? I do remember reading (something) they came up with that basically confirmed that.

That's basically true under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401(g) as it existed in 1961. The section has been since been amended, so that's no longer accurate. Which is why Dershowitz is wrong: He should have said, "It doesn't matter where Obama was born, provided he was born a U.S. citizen."

Under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1409, if Obama's mother wasn't married, then she could have conferred citizenship. But there's a valid marriage certificate for his parents, and Obama would have been put in the position of being required to prove not only was his parents' marriage was invalid, but also not entitled to putative benefits that could have flowed from it.

[realist]

One of the "big deal" birther issues was that if Obama had been born in Kenya, then his mother (under the law at the time) would not have been able to confer citizenship because she was too young (AIR, 4-5 months shy of 19). Was there ever any validity to that? I do remember reading (something) they came up with that basically confirmed that.

That's basically true under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401(g) as it existed in 1961. The section has been since been amended, so that's no longer accurate. Which is why Dershowitz is wrong: He should have said, "It doesn't matter where Obama was born, provided he was born a U.S. citizen."

Under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1409, if Obama's mother wasn't married, then she could have conferred citizenship. But there's a valid marriage certificate for his parents, and Obama would have been put in the position of being required to prove not only was his parents' marriage was invalid, but also not entitled to putative benefits that could have flowed from it.

Thanks. The first answer confirms my memory.

The second, I get, which woud have been ridiculous.

As always ... thanks, bob.

[Gregg]

HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

[pipistrelle]

HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

And served two terms as president.

[Suranis]

And he wasn't in the Oval Office on Nine Elevenenen, which proves he is a traitor.

[realist]

HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

And served two terms as president.

Yabut they're null and void.

[noblepa]

HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

And served two terms as president.

Yabut they're null and void.

As are every statute and executive order he signed while he illegally occupied the WH.

[noblepa]

HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

Shouting won't help. The birthers argue that NBC status requires that BOTH parents be US citizens at the time of the child's birth, and they will never be convinced otherwise.

Even if SCOTUS were to take a case that directly involved the question of someone's NBC status, and ruled, specifically, that being born on US soil to parents who were not diplomats was sufficient to confer NBC status, the birthers would argue that SCOTUS was wrong, or that they did not have the right to make such a ruling. Somehow, they would find a way to reject such a ruling

I wonder what the birthers are going to do when a black person, man or woman, born on US soil, both of whose parents were indisputably citizens, is elected President or Vice President. Sooner or later, it WILL happen. The birthers will find some way to move the goalposts.

[pipistrelle]

My memory is shot but I thought I was taught if you was born here you’re a citizen (assuming you want to be) and can run when you hit the age qualification. Also, if your parents are citizens and happen to pop you out in, say, Belgium, you’re a citizen unless you choose otherwise. Maybe I need a refresher.

[Foggy]

Yeah, but different rule for black men elected president.