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

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#576

Post by bob »

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:During such time as the counting of the electoral votes, threatening the sitting president with bodily harm is not protected activity. Doing harm to the President is not an official function of any member of Congress. The Vice-President can be delegated to do anything within the president’s purview. Biden delegated his duty to keep the border secure. Harris however has failed to do that. The President is the executive officer of the ENTIRE executive branch. During time of war he is Commander in Chief of the Military. The “invitation” of a President to speak before the Congress is a mere formality. It is NOT required by law that the President be invited. It is a mandatory “Shall” do to give information to the Congress. NO ONE! Not even the speaker of the House can refuse to allow him to do so. In my class you would receive an “F-“.
Cute how Dr. Laity, Esq. imagines himself a teacher.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#577

Post by noblepa »

Gregg wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 1:05 am Technically, they are elected independent of each other, and this is the NEW way of doing it, as originally the Vice President was the runner up.
That may be technically true, but I know that you know that, in reality, they are elected as a team.

When I mark my ballot, I am voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for the two candidates of the party in question.

Each elector casts two votes, one for POTUS and one for VPOTUS. But it is the same elector who casts both votes. I believe that, in all states, the electors are pledged to vote for the persons named on the ballot; that is, the candidate for POTUS and the candidate for VPOTUS who were nominated by the party.

In theory, electors could rebel and vote for someone other than the two that they are pledged to. Some states have laws that purport to prevent so-called "faithless electors", but I don't believe that the Constitutionality of such laws has ever been definitively decided by SCOTUS. There have, of course, been a handful of faithless electors over the years, but it has never made a difference in the election. As such, it is a moot point and the courts don't entertain moot points. If it ever DOES change the outcome of an election, I suspect that SCOTUS would take the case in a heartbeat.

Question: Has any faithless elector ever been prosecuted under such state laws? That would make it a non-moot point.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#578

Post by noblepa »

northland10 wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:42 pm And that runner-up thing, which ended up with a VP that was not a "running mate" with the President, worked out so well we amended the Constitution.

What Laity, and most folks, don't remember is that a VP with executive branch duties is generally a new thing. The traditional role was that the VP would be President of the Senate, a generally ceremonial role, save for the ability to break ties (and the vote counting thing) and as a replacement if we lost the President. This led John Nance Garner to refer to the vice presidency as "not worth a bucket of warm piss"

Oh, the other main, non-Constitutional role of the Vice Presidential candidate is to balance the Presidential ticket for the election.

If a President does not like the VP, they have 2 options:

1. Don't give them anything to do.
2. Replace them as your running mate for the next election.

These options have been repeated many times.
Remember when Jimmie Carter decided to make his VP, Walter Mondale, his chief of staff? IIRC, that didn't last very long. I'm not even sure that it ever happened, but I remember Carter saying he was going to do so.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#579

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 3:42 pm P&E comment:
Laity wrote:During such time as the counting of the electoral votes, threatening the sitting president with bodily harm is not protected activity. Doing harm to the President is not an official function of any member of Congress. The Vice-President can be delegated to do anything within the president’s purview. Biden delegated his duty to keep the border secure. Harris however has failed to do that. The President is the executive officer of the ENTIRE executive branch. During time of war he is Commander in Chief of the Military. The “invitation” of a President to speak before the Congress is a mere formality. It is NOT required by law that the President be invited. It is a mandatory “Shall” do to give information to the Congress. NO ONE! Not even the speaker of the House can refuse to allow him to do so. In my class you would receive an “F-“.
Cute how Dr. Laity, Esq. imagines himself a teacher.
Also cute that Rondeau allows the dissenting opinions in because she and her 3 followers believe he is correct and is actually teaching.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#580

Post by Gregg »

Also, the VP taking over as actually President as opposed to Acting President is not in the Constitution and was not a given the first time it came up.

William Henry Harrison died just a month in and amid uncertainty as to whether a vice president succeeded a deceased president, or merely took on his duties, Tyler immediately took the presidential oath of office, setting a lasting precedent.

It is probably one of the few things that is not written law but just accepted and therefore works that Trump did not look at and say "phuck it" and reminded us all once again why we cannot have nice things and if it ain't written down, it don't really count. Or won't until it's spent 3 years being litigated to the Supreme Court at least twice.

ETA:

The 25th Amendment actually settled this question, but who here thinks Trump wouldn't challenge that if it suited him and Clarence Thomas would vote in Trump's favor even if it meant voting that no matter that he has assumed room temperature, is stiff and starting to smell, he is still alive, actually President and can still declassify anything he wants.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#581

Post by noblepa »

Gregg wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:18 pm Also, the VP taking over as actually President as opposed to Acting President is not in the Constitution and was not a given the first time it came up.

William Henry Harrison died just a month in and amid uncertainty as to whether a vice president succeeded a deceased president, or merely took on his duties, Tyler immediately took the presidential oath of office, setting a lasting precedent.

It is probably one of the few things that is not written law but just accepted and therefore works that Trump did not look at and say "phuck it" and reminded us all once again why we cannot have nice things and if it ain't written down, it don't really count. Or won't until it's spent 3 years being litigated to the Supreme Court at least twice.

ETA:

The 25th Amendment actually settled this question, but who here thinks Trump wouldn't challenge that if it suited him and Clarence Thomas would vote in Trump's favor even if it meant voting that no matter that he has assumed room temperature, is stiff and starting to smell, he is still alive, actually President and can still declassify anything he wants.
I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#582

Post by bob »

P&E comment:
Laity wrote:[N]o one should presume to tell another person what they “need” [to do].
Which is rather rich, as Laity's purpose in life is to ineffectually tell people what they ought to be doing.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#583

Post by pipistrelle »

bob wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 3:19 pm P&E comment:
Laity wrote:[N]o one should presume to tell another person what they “need” [to do].
Which is rather rich, as Laity's purpose in life is to ineffectually tell people what they ought to be doing.
Something he has in common with Taitz.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#584

Post by Gregg »

noblepa wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:44 am :snippity:

I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).
Not much room to dispute the 22nd Amendment...
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#585

Post by noblepa »

Gregg wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:32 am
noblepa wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:44 am :snippity:

I also think that if Trump somehow IS actually elected again in 2024 and lives until 2028, he will announce that he is running for a third term, claiming that, since his first two terms were non-consecutive, the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply. (This all assumes that he isn't impeached AGAIN and convicted).
Not much room to dispute the 22nd Amendment...
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I agree. To me, the amendment is pretty clear. That won't stop him from making the claim and it won't stop that MAGA crowd from agreeing.

I was merely making a prediction of what Trump would say in 2028, when he announces his run for another term. Fortunately, I don't think he will live that long. He is already 75 years old. In 2028, he will be 81. I diet of Big Macs, fries and diet coke is not conducive to exceptionally long life.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#586

Post by Kriselda Gray »

noblepa wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:01 pmFortunately, I don't think he will live that long. He is already 75 years old. In 2028, he will be 81. I diet of Big Macs, fries and diet coke is not conducive to exceptionally long life.
I'm surprised and dismayed he's made it this long.
User avatar
Flatpoint High
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
Verified:

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#587

Post by Flatpoint High »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:15 am
noblepa wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:01 pmFortunately, I don't think he will live that long. He is already 75 years old. In 2028, he will be 81. I diet of Big Macs, fries and diet coke is not conducive to exceptionally long life.
I'm surprised and dismayed he's made it this long.
it's the adrenchrome
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#588

Post by bob »

"For completeness": P&E comments:
Laity wrote:Read my book and learn what an NBC actually is.

* * *

No Court has disagreed with me. My cases are always dismissed on some spurious and specious claim of “No Standing” or some such technicality. I have ample U.S. Supreme Court precedent on my side. Obama is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States. Neither are Duckworth, Gabbard, Harris, Mc Cain, Cruz, Rubio or Jindal.

* * *

Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies

* * *

Trump made great efforts to reduce illegal immigration by having a border wall built and having public officials in his cabinet who actually cared about our border security. Biden purposely made efforts to scuttle those efforts, therefore violating his oath of office.

* * *

It was Obama who had all his records sealed. The previous usurper, Chester Arthur, BURNED HIS PAPERS.

* * *

Mere birth in the USA is NOT sufficient to be President. Obama’s purported parents Obama, Sr. and Stanley Dunham, weren’t legally married. Senior was never a US Citizen. Obama was born with BRITISH citizenship.

* * *

Mere birth in the US does not suffice to be President. One’s parents must also be citizens of the USA.

* * *

Pelosi is guilty of fraud because she stated that Obama met all criteria to be President. He does NOT!!

* * *

Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
:yawn:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#589

Post by Gregg »

Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies

Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
I'm sorry, did I miss Nancy joining the Army? Obama at least has a tenuous connection to the UCMJ and the military inasmuch as he was Commander in Chief.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#590

Post by bob »

Gregg wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:19 pm I'm sorry, did I miss Nancy joining the Army? Obama at least has a tenuous connection to the UCMJ and the military inasmuch as he was Commander in Chief.
Pelosi was an accomplice to Obama's treasonous fraud, therefore, the military has jurisdiction.

/drlaityesq
Image ImageImage
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#591

Post by noblepa »

Gregg wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:19 pm
Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the USA. She faces “execution” if she is ever convicted in a court martial under UCMJ, Article 103 -Spies

Obama will be an issue till the day that he is convicted, found guilty and faces the appropriate justice by the Military under the UCMJ Article 103-Spies.
I'm sorry, did I miss Nancy joining the Army? Obama at least has a tenuous connection to the UCMJ and the military inasmuch as he was Commander in Chief.
UCMJ wrote: (a)The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1)Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of
enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their
actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the
armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2)Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3)
(A)While on inactive-duty training and during any of the periods specified in subparagraph (B)—
(i)members of a reserve component; and
(ii)members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, but only
when in Federal service.
(B)The periods referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i)Travel to and from the inactive-duty training site of the member, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(ii)Intervals between consecutive periods of inactive-duty training on the same day, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(iii)Intervals between inactive-duty training on consecutive days, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(4)Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5)Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6)Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7)Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8)Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when
assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9)Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10)In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11)Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and
outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12)Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which
is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13)Individuals belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316), who violate the law of war.
I know that POTUS is Commander in Chief and there is therefore a (very) tenous connection, but I don't see where in the above quote from the UCMJ that the President would fit. He/she is not a member of a "regular component of the armed forces", a cadet or midshipman or any of the other persons or categories of persons listed.

IANAL, but I don't think that the President is subject to the UCMJ. I don't think that any of our regular readers or contributors here think so, either.

I strongly suspect that none of the RWNJs who insist that Obama can be court-martialled have ever read even this much of the UCMJ. I believe that, if a retired service member is charged under the UCMJ, they must be recalled to active duty for the duration of their trial. Does that mean that the whackos want Obama recalled to active duty? That would mean re-installing him as President, would it not?
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#592

Post by Gregg »

Most of them never even read the fine print of their Article 15 papers.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#593

Post by Luke »

This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Laity!! With a new GOP House coming in, no excuses, time for the letter-writing campaign to begin again! But this time Rev Dr Laity Esq must not forget to include SHERIFF'S KITS. Still absolutely positive that's why it failed last time and it's really Mike Volin's fault.

Bob, has Laity announced he's started working on the letter-writing campaign yet? Those letters are not going to write themselves. For real, this time, this could be it!
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: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#594

Post by bob »

orlylicious wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 pm This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for Laity!! With a new GOP House coming in, no excuses, time for the letter-writing campaign to begin again! But this time Rev Dr Laity Esq must not forget to include SHERIFF'S KITS. Still absolutely positive that's why it failed last time and it's really Mike Volin's fault.

Bob, has Laity announced he's started working on the letter-writing campaign yet? Those letters are not going to write themselves. For real, this time, this could be it!
Almost! P&E comment:
Laity wrote:[It] is my life mission to see that Obama IS Court-Martialed, found guilty and faces the consequences for espionage and treason.
Some jerk* helpfully passed on your excellent suggestion of MOAR letters and sheriff's kits to the House.


* :whistle:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#595

Post by Ben-Prime »

bob wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:24 am Some jerk* helpfully passed on your excellent suggestion of MOAR letters and sheriff's kits to the House.


* :whistle:
That jerk does get around and do good every now again, don't they? Whew.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#596

Post by bob »

Just when I fear Laity might have joined the Dead Birthers Docket (NADT), he's back with a P&E comment:
Laity wrote:Just TODAY, John Roberts of FOX news continued to express a misunderstanding of the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. When his name was suggested as a candidate for Speaker of the House, Roberts quipped that he wasn’t born in the United States and was therefore not an NBC. Without mentioning that one’s parents must be US Citizens themselves, Roberts further acknowleged that anyone in line to BE VP or POTUS “MUST be a Natural Born Citizen”.
1. Roberts, who was born in Canada, is a naturalized citizen.
2. The Speaker doesn't need to be even a U.S. citizen. :eek:
3. Ineligible people still may be in the line of succession; they'll just get skipped over.

:brickwallsmall:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#597

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:15 pm Just when I fear Laity might have joined the Dead Birthers Docket (NADT), he's back with a P&E comment:
Laity wrote:Just TODAY, John Roberts of FOX news continued to express a misunderstanding of the term of art “Natural Born Citizen”. When his name was suggested as a candidate for Speaker of the House, Roberts quipped that he wasn’t born in the United States and was therefore not an NBC. Without mentioning that one’s parents must be US Citizens themselves, Roberts further acknowleged that anyone in line to BE VP or POTUS “MUST be a Natural Born Citizen”.
1. Roberts, who was born in Canada, is a naturalized citizen.
2. The Speaker doesn't need to be even a U.S. citizen. :eek:
3. Ineligible people still may be in the line of succession; they'll just get skipped over.

:brickwallsmall:
Being a churchy dude, I'm glad he was wrong in 3 ways. In church stuff we use three all of the time, such as the Trinity, Peter denying Christ, the three-legged stool, and the meter for the closing hymn next Sunday.*
► Show Spoiler
101010 :towel:
chancery
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#598

Post by chancery »

northland10 wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:45 pm
Being a churchy dude, I'm glad he was wrong in 3 ways. In church stuff we use three all of the time, such as the Trinity, Peter denying Christ, the three-legged stool, and the meter for the closing hymn next Sunday.*
► Show Spoiler
Off Topic
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#599

Post by noblepa »

I'm sure that Roberts wasn't trying to hold an exhaustive discussion of what constitutes an NBC.

To a Vattelist, being born in Canada is an immediate disqualification, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

To others, an NBC is one who is a citizen at birth. For most, that status is conferred by the 14th Amendment, but the law says that one born abroad, to US citizen parents, is a citizen at birth. Such a child need not apply for naturalization. See John McCain (born in Panama, outside the Canal Zone, to US parents).
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 1831
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:19 pm

Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

#600

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Was it Mario Apuzzo' (requiescat in deliquio) who posited multiple grades of US citizenship, which in my mind harkened to the colored belts awarded in judo, karate, etc.?

Or was it one of the other boorishly blathering birthers?
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”