Fogbow

bob wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 6:06 pm

noblepa wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:55 am Even if, as Apuzzo contends, the framers didn't intend for children born to foreigners to be citizens (a contention I don't accept) that all changed with the 14th Amendment.

The Right Side of Life
Forwarded from
CodeMonkeyZ
AN HONEST ELECTION
—
1. Deleted databases
2. No chain of custody
3. Nobody knows the admin password
4. Election officials panicking
5. Huge amounts of digitally adjudicated ballots
6. Not allowed to look at the router
7. Router shared with at least 50 other networks
8. Election run by a private vendor
9. A hundred lawyers defending election officials
10. Soros’ Sheriff running interference
11. Ignored subpoenas
12. Missing ballots
13. Hammer and scorecard?
14. Secretary of state taking campaign gifts from foreign countries
15. County voter files hacked then covered up
16. SQL server back door
17. Not allowed to discuss any of this on socialist media.

Marla's Mexican Food
1310 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, Ca

10:00 am
Thursdays

* * *

Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.

* * *

One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was Vatell’s “Law of Nations.”

Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings.

* * *

Vetell’s Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a “Natural Born Citizen.”

Resources:

* * *

Mountain Publius Goat, “Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen,” Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliber ... ations.pdf

realist wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:44 pm So what, she just didn't waste her time and money to respond?

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:18 pm P&E: comment:

Laity wrote:[If SCOTUS denis cert.], prompt refiling for rehearing will ensue. Congress has abrogated its responsibility to check and balance usurpers of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. The courts have “evaded” the issue long enough. I urge them to take up the task of preserving the integrity of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. BTW, the U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of California has issued a DEFAULT ruling against Kamala D. Harris in Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Devi Harris, Case # 320*-cv-2379-TWR-BLM, U.S.D.C.-Southern District of California. It is an eligibility case.

Dr. Laity Esquire doesn't know the difference between a clerk's entry of a default and a default ruling (which isn't a thing).

* 3:20, with "20" representing that it was filed in 2020; de minimis.

northland10 wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:10 pm For completeness, the Acting US Attorney filed an ex parte motion to set aside default (I assume ex parte is because they want to retain they were not served and are not making an appearance).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 24.6.0.pdf

Seems they believe that sending a certified letter to the White House is not sufficient.

Here is the docket.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18 ... -v-harris/

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:13 pm The blog of one of the Constitutional Association dudes:
Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.

* * *

One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was Vatell’s “Law of Nations.”

Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings.

Resources:

* * *

Mountain Publius Goat, “Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen,” Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliber ... ations.pdf

noblepa wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:45 pmI don't understand why these morons can't understand that Vattel's book is not a legal document.

northland10 wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:10 pm Reposted from Laity's thread for completeness.


For completeness, the Acting US Attorney filed an ex parte motion to set aside default (I assume ex parte is because they want to retain they were not served and are not making an appearance).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 24.6.0.pdf

Seems they believe that sending a certified letter to the White House is not sufficient.

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:13 pm The blog of one of the Constitutional Association dudes: Beaumont Constitution Class: Natural Born Citizen:

Marla's Mexican Food
1310 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, Ca

10:00 am
Thursdays

* * *



Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings. (No. Every noun in the Constitution is capitalized. You'd think they would have noticed that.)

* * *

Vetell’s Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a “Natural Born Citizen.”

(And yet no court has ever interpreted that sentence that way.)
The most famous unknown Framer: Vettell.

Kicker:

Resources:

* * *

Mountain Publius Goat, “Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen,” Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliber ... ations.pdf

bob wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:58 pm If they were smart, they wouldn't be birthers.

It is a backfilled justification; conclusion first, firing squad second, evidence second not really necessary after the firing squad .

Vetell’s Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil ...

Uninformed wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:45 am Would it be appropriate to change the relatively polite “remainders” in the title to “dregs”?

S.D. Cal. wrote:ORDER: (1) Allowing Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Set Aside Default and (2) Requiring Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why The Court Should not Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court Orders Plaintiffs to file any response to the Ex Parte Application no later than 6/3/2021. If Plaintiffs file a response to this Order, Defendant may file a reply no later than seven days after Plaintiffs' response is filed.

bob wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 2:55 pm
The court's longer order cites Drake and Grinols, so they can thank Taitz for their inevitable dismissal. IIRC, one of them said they had informally consulted Taitz before filing this dreck.

H/t N10!

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:20 pm I loved "remainders"