Fogbow

orlylicious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:07 pm 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.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 8:02 pm Well but if it's settled, why did Rev Dr Laity Esq Supplicant need to have his huge letter-writing campaign?

orlylicious wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:07 pm Rev Dr Laity Esq's "BIG 'PLAN B'" is steaming along! So many letters, so much effort.

Laity wrote:[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.

* * *

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

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

Atticus Finch wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:38 pm Vattel did not write the "Law of Nations"? But only translated into French? Wow, that is beyond stupid even for a birther.

qbawl wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:47 pm

Atticus Finch wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:38 pm 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.

Laity wrote: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.

bob wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 11:49 am P&E comment:

Laity wrote: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 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:34 pm 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.

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.

realist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:10 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:20 pm

realist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:10 pm 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.

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:43 pm HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:46 pm

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:43 pm 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.

realist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:49 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:46 pm

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:43 pm 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.

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 4:43 pm HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES!!!

ffs...