“It costs a thousand dollars to file for the New Hampshire primary. But it doesn’t cost anything to lodge an official challenge to get someone kicked off the ballot.”
— ABC News
ABC News reports two election challenges filed in New Hampshire. One is against Bernie Sanders—for not being a Democrat. It was filed by a familiar name on this web site, Andy Martin (Martin is running for President himself). The other challenge is against Ted Cruz for being too Canadian (Cruz was born there).
The Post & Email reports that Robert Laity is challenging 4 candidates, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, all of whom Laity says have one of more foreign parents, and Cruz wasn’t born in the US either.
Laity is the Founding President of the Society for the Preservation of Democracy and Founder and President of the Society for the Preservation of our American Republic.
It remains to be seen if the right-wing candidates will receive as much attention as did President Obama when he ran.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission will hear arguments on Tuesday, November 24, against Sanders and Cruz. In addition, there is a challenge by Fergus Cullen, the former New Hampshire GOP chairman, arguing that Donald Trump is not sufficiently Republican.
Read more:
- Challenges to Cruz ‘natural-born’ citizenship to be heard in NH next week – WMUR Manchester
- N.H. panel weighing challenge to Trump’s ballot eligibility – Politico
- Sanders, Cruz Candidacies in Spotlight in Concord Tuesday – New Hampshire Public Radio
We have already had two usurpers in the White House, Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. ALL the bona-fide Presidents were “Natural Born [American] Citizens” except for the first seven who were grandfathered in. John Jay, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice was the person who suggested that a strong deterrent to the influence of foreign interference in our sovereign affairs be enshrined in Article II,Sec.1,Clause v of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the “GOP4” as I refer to Rubio,Cruz,Jindal and Santorum are frauds. Rubio and Cruz, under Cuban law, RETAIN their Cuban citizenship for life. Cuban law does not recognize the Children of Cubans to be U.S.Citizens. This would make Rubio and Cruz subject to the Cuban Military draft. Recently, U.S. Embassy officials in Cuba have officially apprised the two of this fact.
Chinese warships off the coast of Cuba and this:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/u-s-embassy-warning-to-dual-citizens-cruz-rubio/
Very interesting.
Me likes.
Go get ’em, Robert!
Sorry but this is settled law.
I sent this email to the NHAG yesterday.
Attorney General Foster,
I understand that an Official Notice of Dispute has been filed with your office over the presidential candidacy of four individuals (Senator Rubio, Senator Cruz, Governor Jindal and former Senator Santorum). The notice of dispute alleges that they do not meet the Constitutional requirements for the presidency in that they are not “natural born Citizens”. Similar claims were made against President Obama in 2008 and 2012. Several of these claims against the President were adjudicated in either state or federal courts. In every case the judges determined that President Obama’s birth in Hawaii was sufficient to rule him a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution. All of the decisions cite to the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) in their rulings. Here are several examples”
Vermont:
Even if the court is to reach the substance of his claim, Mr. Paige has no reasonable probability of succeeding. The Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed and conclusively rejected the same argument that Mr. Paige raises here in a through and well reasoned decision. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E. 2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App 2010). In short, relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases demonstrate that the question of who is a “natural born citizen” under the U. S. Constitution is answered in the common law. The common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Paige v. Obama, Condos. Vermont Superior Court
New Jersey:
“Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.” Purpura v. Obama
Maryland:
“The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Fair v. Obama
District Court Eastern District of Virginia
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. [Wong kim] Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’…have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding…and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.” Tisdale v. Obama
All of the decisions were upheld on appeal.
Hopefully this information is useful to you in your response to the dispute notice.
Regards,
I got back an immediate response from the deputy attorney general thank me for the information.
Laity, of course, failed to follow New Hampshire’s easy-to-follow law regarding how to challenge a candidate. Laity’s letter to the Attorney General is legally meaningless.
Your understanding of the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” is totally erroneous, literally without foundation and contradicts every jurisprudence known to man. You might as well have claimed these candidates are lizard-people. It would make just as much sense.
He knows that. You are talking to a brick wall.
If you were correct that dual citizenship disqualified someone from the US Presidency, the implications would be profound and disturbing.
I think that most would agree that it is a principle of international law that each nation-state has the sovereign right to decide its own law of citizenship to sort out who is and is not s citizen. (Of course, some countries will choose to place limitations by enshrining constitutional principles on the matter or even entering into specific treaties to limit their own sovereign decision-making. This is their decision.) The result is that different nation-states have very different approaches to citizenship. It is possible for someone to hold citizenship of a country in circumstances where other countries might consider it odd for citizenship to be granted, with the result being that many people have dual or even multiple citizenship. Not all dual or multiple citizens are aware of their status and not all are able to relinquish their citizenship.
Each nation-state has the sovereign power to impose its citizenship on anyone it wants, subject to whatever legal or constitutional limitations it signed up for. If you were right that dual or multiple citizenship were somehow disqualifying for the Presidency, then the result would be that each nation-state could exercise veto power by imposing its citizenship on individuals or a class of individuals.
I shall illustrate the point using a hypothetical imposition of British citizenship. I only do so because the UK does not have a codified constitution and the UK’s laws on nationality are a matter of statute that can be changed relatively easily. The British Parliament could, if it so chose, pass a law declaring anyone born in former British colony to be one of its citizens. (It could even limit the impact on migration by imposing such status while saying that someone who is only British by virtue of that law does not have the right of abode in the UK. This would not actually be dissimilar to the situation of many “non-patrial” “citizens of the UK and colonies” of previous decades, but that’s another discussion.) Loss of British citizenship is governed by statute and the UK Parliament could provide that citizenship acquired by virtue of that Act is incapable of being relinquished, or could say that it could only be relinquished at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
In the hypothetical above, politicians in Westminster would have the power to, for example disqualify, disqualify Donald Trump and millions more people from the US Presidency. It could even be more direct and simply name specific individuals in the statute who were given citizenship and incapable of renouncing it.
Of course, the UK would never have any reason to pass such a law. However, the UK is not the only nation-state in the world making decisions as to who its citizens are. Many nation-states might wish to do the US harm or interfere with its political process. Your position would, if correct, actually create potential for extraordinary foreign interference in the US election system.
Let’s not insult sound and valuable construction materials! 🙂
First, let me say that I appreciate you taking the time to comment on this article. It’s valuable when the “newsmakers” join in the discussion.
Faced with two propositions:
1) The US Congress and the US Courts are treasonous
2) Robert C. Laity misunderstands the definition of “natural born citizen”
Even if I knew nothing about the issue, I would choose the second because I find the first facially absurd and the second eminently plausible, but because I know a lot about the issue, I am even more confident in my choice.
Wrong.
Wrong
The applicable Cuba citizenship law states:
ARTICLE 32
Cubans may not be deprived of their citizenship save for established legal causes. Neither may they be deprived of the right to change citizenship.
Dual citizenship is not recognized. Therefore, when a foreign citizenship is acquired, the Cuban one will be lost.
Formalization of the loss of citizenship and the authorities empowered to decide on this is prescribed by law.
The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1976 (as Amended to 2002)
Cuba doesn’t recognize dual citizenship of its citizens who are born abroad to parents who are Cuban citizens. As such, Rubio and Cruz lost their Cuban citizenship upon acquiring their United States citizenship through the citizenship of one of their parents (Ted Cruz) or by being born in the United States by the common law principle of Jus Soli (Marco Rubio).
Wrong
The applicable Cuba citizenship law states:
ARTICLE 32
Cubans may not be deprived of their citizenship save for established legal causes. Neither may they be deprived of the right to change citizenship.
Dual citizenship is not recognized. Therefore, when a foreign citizenship is acquired, the Cuban one will be lost.
Formalization of the loss of citizenship and the authorities empowered to decide on this is prescribed by law.
The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1976 (as Amended to 2002)
Cuba doesn’t recognize dual citizenship of its citizens who are born abroad to parents who are Cuban citizens. As such, Rubio and Cruz lost their Cuban citizenship upon acquiring their United States citizenship through the citizenship of one of their parents (Ted Cruz) or by being born in the United States by the common law principle of Jus Soli (Marco Rubio).
The applicable Cuba citizenship law states:
Chapter II
ARTICLE 32
Cubans may not be deprived of their citizenship save for established legal causes. Neither may they be deprived of the right to change citizenship.
Dual citizenship is not recognized. Therefore, when a foreign citizenship is acquired, the Cuban one will be lost.
Formalization of the loss of citizenship and the authorities empowered to decide on this is prescribed by law.
The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1976 (as Amended to 2002)
Cuba doesn’t recognize dual citizenship of its citizens who are born abroad to parents who are Cuban citizens. As such, Rubio and Cruz lost their Cuban citizenship upon acquiring their United States citizenship through the citizenship of one of their parents (Ted Cruz) or by being born in the United States by the common law principle of Jus Soli (Marco Rubio).
U.S. Emassy warns U.S/Cuba Citizens by principle of Cuban Soil or Cuban Parent they may be subject to Military duty.
I’m waiting for a Mainstream Candidate to decide to give Rubio and Cruz a Ballot Challenge. With Gov. Bush behind and not self-funding, he’d stand the most to gain.
I think Donald Trump stands the most to lose by not filing a Ballot Challenge on Cruz and Rubio
He risks his base to Bush and being called a phoney
http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/13/u-s-embassy-warning-to-dual-citizens-cruz-rubio/
I figured as much.
One thing for certain that [Anti]-Birthers stand in fear of.
Main Stream Candidates getting into the thick of both Ballot and Court Challenges.
Absolutely NOTHING they cite is real precedent in the Circumstances of Presidential Qualifications.
Virtually ALL they assert is regarding [Citizen] and not [natural born Citizen]
There is NOT a single case between PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES that has a United States Supreme Court Decision in requards to the Article II, Section 1, C-5 qualification Of [ natural born Citizen]
Judy v. Obama 14-9396 comes closest , but money in a #WarOnPoo stopped it.
What could happen if money 💰 came into the picture based on MainStream Candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars , big time Attorneys, and a following that put pickets in front of MainSTREAM Media outlets chanting. Yes., that’s the scene where the Arkeny Decision is seen as a Twinkie mishandled on an NFL Field like it was a football 🏈.
Do you realize how close that is to happening with the Perfect Storm raging between Bush and Rubio, where Bush is losing?
You couldn’t pick or Dream of something liked that really happening 6 months ago. Wow!
Dadada dunt dadunt dunt daaaa.. Can we here the NFL Music stomp playing..
Now.. Notice WHO on my Facebook and Twitter page highlighted that Post as an Editorial at the Post&Email.
Yup #Bush2016 @SocialNews
Then you will be waiting a long time.
It isn’t going to happen, and even if it did, no one “fears” it.
Rubio, Cruz, and Santorum were born in the United States; several courts have already expressly ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.
Alan Keyes, Keith Judd, and Edward Noonan all unsuccessfully attacked President Obama’s eligibility. And some fool named Cody Judy as well.
Judy’s latest suit fail, not because of some imaginary war on “poo”(!), but because Judy failed to quality for IFP status.
I have no idea what Judy is trying to say, but no court or legal expert thinks Ankeny was wrongly decided.
No closer than President Obama being removed from office.
It always could have been a dream, but it will never be a reality.
@Bob Let’s see.. Maybe define “Long Time”?
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/665897324661485568
Facebook
https://m.facebook.com/CodyRobertJudyForPresident2016/
Actually, I would be delighted for the Republicans in general to go down that rabbit hole, proving to the American people that they are not only unfit to govern, but nut-case loony.
Does “forever” satisfy you? Because it won’t happen.
The RNC formally select its candidate by July 21. I guarantee that no “mainstream” candidate will legally challenge the eligibility of another mainstream candidate by then.
I’m seeing a pattern here.
Well of course any Citizen can challenge with a Ballot Challenge in their State, however, I’m really encouraging Birthers to put the pressure on Presidential Candidates within the same Party in the Primary.
Mostly because if the Ballot Challenge which is a function of the Executive Branch in each State is appealed into the Judicial Branch then “Standing” becomes an issue.
The Courts we can certainly all agree on have ruled if your not a Presidential Candidate you have no damages directly related to the challenge.
You’re not losing Campaign Contributions or having your Campaign Run over by a Monster Truck 🚚 due to the illegal Candidate vying for the same office funded by foreign Saudi Princes [for] instance.
You know what I just thought of? Saudi Arabia may just be the sorriest suckers helping Obama due to that Iran Nuke Deal.
People often forget, the ISLAM REPUBLIC OF Iran is not on the best terms with Saudi Arabia. Obama is favoring the Sunni Muslims and that’s more favorable to Iran’s fundamentalism.
It’s very difficult to get the Sunni and Shia Muslims united .. It would be Saudi Arabia’s worse nightmare to have Iran Nuke their oil fields while they funded it through Obama…
Wow I’ve heard of Stupid but that one would have the Saudi Arabia Princes praying Obama was declared ineligible just to make sure the Iran Deal was stomped in the dust and dead dead dead..
http://www.wsj.com/video/saudi-arabia-vs-iran-the-sunni-shiite-proxy-wars/A7B70696-9A6D-4B26-88EC-BBFDD44AE112.html
But that would mean breathing new life into .. Hummmm
A mainstream candidate challenging another’s eligibility isn’t going happen, but please proceed with your “pressure” campaign anyway. Nb.: There are few birthers here; your efforts will be better spent elsewhere.
Several ballot challenges were filed against President Obama; standing generally was not an issue. They lost because President Obama was, in fact, a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible.
That generalized statement does not cover all situations.
Is it too late to say, “No one cares”?
Thinking that “Saudi Arabia Princes” are going to bankroll eligibility challenges against President Obama is about one the stupidest things you’ve said. And that’s no small feat.
Didn’t have time to get that change in … Last Post-Should have been [Obama is favoring the Sunni Muslims and that’s more favorable to S.A’s fundamentalism.]
@Bob [ Several ballot challenges were filed against President Obama; standing generally was not an issue. They lost because President Obama was, in fact, a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible]
Actually, Obama Didn’t have any Ballot Challenges in 2008 @Bob. . they were filed in 2012 because in ’08 we didn’t see it coming. Berg’ v. Obama hit the U.S. Supreme Court in October from a August filing.
That’ you’d have to admit was late in the game and was the first real noticeable blip in the Eligibility Filings of 2008.
That did place Obama in a much more cozy position as an incumbent and the indiscretion much more burdensome on Judicial Branch Authority.
I am certain Rubio and Cruz do not enjoy the cozy incumbancy blanket Obama enjoyed. I am certain #Republicans would not favor Obama being thrown at them in THEIR Primary Nomination as precedent also.
Just a few glicks we could see happen that would Feature @Bob prophesies to be False. They are certainly factors that have not happened which make his guesses bets on futures.
I’m confident @Bob didn’t see Rubio pulling the Establishment’s wallet out from under Bush. It’s really hard to see BUSH doing that given the red carpet rolled for Obama, however, it’s also very hard to see BUSH give up with a hundred million in the tank not at least trying.
Guess it comes down to being his own man.. Doesn’t it and how bad he wants it.
Maybe he is a Pussy Willow?
If the citizenship laws if Cuba control who the United States could recognize as natural born, wouldn’t that be allowing a foreign country to influence our selection of a chief executive? How does one limit foreign influence by inviting foreign influence?
Cody, believe me when I say that you GROSSLY misunderstand the nature of the entire birther/ anti-birther thing.
You imagine, you fantasize (and believe me, that’s ALL it is) that there’s this important struggle going on between birthers and anti-birthers, and that anti-birthers “fear” losing that struggle.
This is wrong at several major points.
First of all, while the birther/anti-birther thing may in fact be important, or at least may have BEEN important in the past, it’s not for the reasons you think.
Now I hope you’re going to pay attention here, and try to understand. I sincerely doubt this is going to happen, because you seem to be completely incapable of setting aside your preconceived notions and looking at things objectively, but hey. What the heck. We’ll give it a shot anyway.
There is one major reason why the birther/anti-birther thing has ever BEEN (past tense) important.
That reason is: We shouldn’t allow bullsh*t and lies to reign in the public arena. It’s bad for the country. And by the way, if you believe in God, God doesn’t think very highly of bullsh*t and lies.
And everything – EVERY SINGLE THING – that birthers have ever pushed, has turned out to be exactly that. Bullsh*t.
A lot of anti-birthers have also been active because they have political and ideological affinity with the current President, and wanted to support him against the bullsh*t and lies for that reason. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s part of the American political system our Founding Fathers wanted and set up.
But it’s certainly not true that anti-birthers are only supporters of President Obama. To varying degrees, anti-birthers include conservatives, libertarians, and probably a few people who aren’t even that interested politically, but just don’t care for bullsh*t.
By the way, it’s worth noting that if anti-birthers were in the discussion just for political reasons, they would now be doing everything they could to help declare Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz ineligible, because Rubio and Cruz are arguably the most qualified of the Republican field. Oddly (or not), you have a virtually unanimous consensus among anti-birthers that both Rubio and Cruz are natural born citizens, and Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
That fact alone should tell you that anti-birtherism is an HONEST endeavor.
Secondly, the whole remaining discussion is not, in fact, important at this point in time.
It’s not important for the simple reason that anti-birthers have resoundingly “won” the discussion. At least, for anyone who’s been paying any attention.
I’ll grant that a lot of Americans haven’t been paying attention, and many of those still imagine that Obama was born in Kenya, or that his birth certificate’s forged, or that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
As I pointed out before, these are all people who hate Obama for political reasons already, so it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Birthers won not one single court case. Barack Obama was the first President since Eisenhower to beat 51 percent in two consecutive elections. It’s hard to define “failure” more bitingly than that.
I’ll say it again: At any point at which it matters, birtherism has been an absolute and total failure. For all the meaningful effect that you and every other birther in the country has had, you might as well have sat in your bedrooms with sex toys for the past 7 years. That’s how ineffectual your efforts have been. And when it comes to Obama, it’s over. You lost. Get over it.
Now I’ll admit that it’s just remotely POSSIBLE you might be able to narrowly prevent someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio from getting the nomination and becoming President, through misinforming the public. In that case, perhaps Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes President. If it comes down to Hillary versus Trump or Carson, my reading is that Hillary probably wins. But I could be wrong. I have the feeling that if Trump does somehow become President, we’ll all regret it.
Anyway, if you want to try and make sure we get an idiot like Trump for the Republican nomination rather than someone intelligent like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, well, go for it.
But back to the main point: You imagine that anti-birthers “fear” something. You couldn’t be further wrong.
Do you know why I come to this site, and follow the antics of birthers? It’s for purposes of entertainment. You guys are, quite LITERALLY, clowns. And I LITERALLY get MULTIPLE GOOD LAUGHS, EVERY WEEK, from your god-awful, unbelievable stupidity. The fact that the clownery is done by real people who are TAKING THEMSELVES SERIOUSLY is part of what makes it so d*mn funny.
I am almost-literally LMAO at you.
And I’m not alone.
Now you’re a Constitutional law expert?
This is one of the interesting things about birthers. They are completely ignorant (as you are) about the law and how it works. They can’t even follow instructions on a form for a legal challenge. They lose every single court case they ever file (I think we’re at something like 0-250 now).
And yet they sincerely believe they’re better experts at the law than real lawyers, and know more even than the US Supreme Court.
As is always the case, you’re simply wrong here.
No, it isn’t, and it’s obvious it isn’t.
But you claim it is because that’s the only way you can maintain the faintest illusion that there’s anything to the complete bullsh*t you’ve dedicated your whole attention to promoting.
Doesn’t matter in the slightest. There are cases that make clear points, at least, of the meaning of natural born citizen.
Very specifically, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1897 that if you’re born on US soil to resident parents, you’re a natural born citizen. Period.
When it comes to President Obama, the courts have ruled again and again and again that YES, he’s a natural born citizen. And the US Supreme Court has AFFIRMED that conclusion by absolutely refusing to hear any complaint that the conclusion is incorrect.
Case closed, except for those who are too dense and obtuse to understand that “case considered closed” is final.
Never said there were ballot challenges during the 2008 election. But every ballot challenge during the 2012 election failed because President Obama is a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible.
Judy’s mangling of English aside, no ballot challenge ruled for President Obama because he was the incumbent. They all ruled for President Obama because the challengers failed to show he was ineligible.
My track record in predicting birther failures 100% accurate so far.
Even if Cuban law trumped U.S. law (which it does not), Cruz and Rubio are not subject to military duty. Compulsory military service in Cuba is only required of Cuban citizens who are between the ages of 17-28.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2024.html
@Nirthland10 [How does one limit foreign influence by inviting foreign influence?]
Actally [anti]~Brothers don’t really care because it’s just one Big world to them and we are all world citizens. There is no “foreign ” …anything. They really down to the root consider for instance … 1790 as a reference of foreigner U.S. nationals as natural born Citizens
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of [citizen] and not [natural born citizen].
The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”
Now I believe Obama tenure in the White House will soon be seen as just as BIG of a Mistake as 1790 appeared to be of 1795.
You might ask yourselves how could they have messed that up for 5 years? It would be a subject making for a really great book I believe.
To really get into the Political Arena of what was happening to cause this and that, but we are undoubtedly left with the stark result. What seemed good like a gift for 5 years was suddenly and very starkly called trash and rectified.
This could very well be the Case with Obama’s malfeasance in the Office of President. It certainly is not my grandiosity that humbly acknowledges I just didn’t have the coins or in this case the perceived value as a Candidate for President to achieve it.
Democrats everywhere might applaud that statement I just made. .however, their joy could be very short lived as they see the Credit placed upon the head of a Republican.
While I shall fade into history unknown today as well tomorrow, perhaps history will notice Jeb Bush or Donald Trump as having the coin to properly get Justice to clean the stall of the Office of President.
Yes, then Democrats as they suffer the Republican rue might say, “Gosh.. We had it with CRJ who we called a Fool.” 😪
Theoretical scenario.
Ted Cruz (who is currently a pretty close 4th in polls behind Trump, Carson & Rubio) gets the nomination.
Trump files a lawsuit alleging that being Canadian-born, he is not included in the definition of “natural born citizen.”
Fairly plausible scenario.
@Rickey [Even if Cuban law trumped U.S. law (which it does not), Cruz and Rubio are not subject to military duty. Compulsory military service in Cuba is only required of Cuban citizens who are between the ages of 17-28.]
Well, of course that depends on whose soil your standing on the USA’s or CUBA’s. And while the Draft might be for 17-28 “Military Duty” could mean cleaning the latrean in the jails While the Guards watched you.
Don’t I know?
I’ll never forget my first job in Prison. Lol we stood to do anything for 40 cents an hour if it meant we could buy a bag of nachoes and a mountain dew
Simply not true.
Anti-birthers understand “foreign” just as well as you do. We’re just as American as you are. We’re probably even “patriots” just as much as you are. For the most part, we just don’t like bullsh*t in our politics. It gives it a bad flavor.
We also realize that ultimately, we all came here from somewhere else. ALL United States citizens, even Native Americans, have ancestors, no matter how distant, who moved to North America. In that sense, we’re ALL either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. You included.
We understand that many of our most dedicated and patriotic AMERICANS are those who came to our shores SEEKING FREEDOM. Those people understand better than most of us what America is all about, because they’ve personally seen the oppression and lack of opportunity they came to our shores to escape.
Those people are Constitutionally excluded from serving as our President, and we (anti-birthers) have no issue with that. But there’s no reason why their children should be.
We also perhaps understand, a bit more subtly, the real dynamics of foreign influence, and it’s nowhere near as simplistic as whether or not you were born 162 miles across the border on Canadian soil.
Very specifically, one of our own FOUNDING FATHERS (I forget which one offhand, but someone else will surely know) commented that he wasn’t as concerned with foreign influence on foreign-born members of Congress as he was on the native-born, because people would be watching the foreign-born, and no one would be thinking about the native-born US citizen Senator or Congressman who was taking money from some foreign country.
Birthers have a child’s understanding of everything. In the event that they have any understanding at all. They certainly don’t understand anti-birthers, that’s for sure.
@ Pete [Anti-birthers understand “foreign” just as well as you do. We’re just as American as you are. We’re probably even “patriots” just as much as you are. For the most part, we just don’t like bullsh*t in our politics. It gives it a bad flavor.
We also realize that ultimately, we all came here from somewhere else. ALL United States citizens, even Native Americans, have ancestors, no matter how distant, who moved to North America. In that sense, we’re ALL either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. You included.]
I just love 💘 it when Pete starts Preaching. And includes me with all you all. Makes my heart fill with gratitude and love.
Lord knows we all drive 80 at times when the speed limit is 70. So, when speaking to the Officer 162 miles cost ya $5K if yr sneaking into Canada the same as straddeling the border with one foot in and one foot out.
Hey, I know. Look at what 1 Letter of the Alphabet Cost me.. the difference between B.O.M. (Book of Mormon) no doubt said in a MORMON LDS Meeting and the perilous and EXTRA ( B) added to IT by the Government.
Especially with all the Facts pointing 👉 for me. It don’t matter.. I can’t get 8 years back or my reputation. Its a bag of ****can.
Thanks Pete
At least you’re half in touch with reality.
Well, that’s a good thing. You’re starting to recognize that history will not recognize you as insignificant, for the simple reason that history isn’t going to remember you at all.
The same, by the way, is true of me. History has no idea who I am.
So now that we’ve established that none of our conversation here – yours or mine – makes any significant difference at all, we’re left with the idea that Bush or Trump is going to have some impact on who can be elected President.
Well, it’s possible (as I’ve already acknowledged) that a Bush or a Trump could get the USSC to clarify once and for all whether persons born US citizens overseas (like Ted Cruz) are natural born citizens.
That’s about the best you can hope for, Cody. And most of us here believe that the Court would rule that they ARE.
As for people like Obama, you’re simply deluding yourself. The Court has already ruled that persons born on US soil, to resident non-aliens, even those who can never become US citizens, are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed this ruling, and the USSC has repeatedly, even adamantly, declined to hear any appeal.
So the only possible gaps are:
* Persons born US citizens abroad, and,
* Persons born on US soil to non-citizen parents who were at the time either here as TOURISTS, or on TEMPORARY VISAS, or ILLEGALLY.
It’s at least possible, if unlikely, that we could see cases reach the Court on those counts. If Ted Cruz wins the nomination, someone like Trump could bring a case. And it’s my understanding that Bobby Jindal’s parents were both here on student visas when he was born in the US.
Jindal is currently registering a healthy 0.3% in the polls, behind 11 other candidates, so there’s no danger of that this election cycle. But who knows? Maybe in 2020 or 2024? Depending on where his career goes from here, Jindal’s a possible nominee up into the 2030s.
As expected, Cody completely missed my point anyway. He is too busy babbling and not bothering to actually understand what anybody says.
My simple point was more directed at Laity’s obsession with John Jay’s “foreign influence” letter. The same people who claim our laws and tradition have an extremely strict limitation of any foreign influence have no problems with letting a foreign country dictate our own citizenship laws and customs. They are comfortable with this foreign influence by not just any nation but Cuba.
While I have no doubt that you have plenty of experience cleaning latrines, it has nothing to do with what I said. Even if Cruz and Rubio were citizens of Cuba (which they are not), they would not be eligible for Cuba’s draft because they are too old.
You apparently have a fantasy that Cruz and/or Rubio might one day end up in jail in Cuba, but that is as unlikely as you ever being elected president.
Hey, Cody. I don’t know whether that’s sincere or sarcastic, but I “preach” partly because I do love America. And I think that, whatever your faults may be (and all of us have them, including yours truly), that you do love America too.
So in that we have some common ground.
Unfortunately, most birthers are so blinded by their dislike of others, and their desire to be “right” – even against the facts – that they can’t see whatever common ground is actually there.
In order for a person born outside Cuba to a Cuban parent to be a citizen of Cuba, the Cuban parent is required to have “complied with the formalities stipulated by law,” whatever those are. I’ve never gone far enough down that rabbit hole to find out.
@Rickey [ You apparently have a fantasy that Cruz and/or Rubio might one day end up in jail in Cuba, but that is as unlikely as you ever being elected president.]
You never know.. They both act like a U.S. Senate job is chump change. Rubio’s giving it up and Cruz has no friends. They might go to Cuba and invest in their Citizenship there work their way up and take over for the Castro Brothers.
Lord know they can talk their selves up a Filibuster , that ought to work for them there. Cuba has it’s hand extended recognising their Citizenship there and never forgetting it.
Jay wished to exclude “foreigners.” He doesn’t used the words “foreign influence.” The way he would exclude foreign influence was to exclude foreigners per se.
Not going to happen: “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape.”
@Pete [Hey, Cody. I don’t know whether that’s sincere or sarcastic,..]
Definitely sincere Pete. I have an Uncle just like you who gives me more shit then you can imagine. But who I dearly love and appreciate and who I know feels the same about me.
I appreciate all your words .. They are pondered.
@Doc [Citizen] was considered Foreigner to the Office of President after the time frame [or Citizen at the time of Adoption of this Constitution]
National is not a term the Political Arena uses much now, but it’s unique discription for first generationers or immigrants naturalized fits well.
Coined in ALIENS and Nationals Acts Title 8
Actually, anti-birthers understand there is a difference: all natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born. Orly Taitz, for example, is a citizen but not a natural-born citizen.
Judy’s track record of his beliefs being wrong is extensive.
There is no malfeasance.
Judy also lacks a legal or factual basis for think President Obama is wrong.
Yet another instance of Judy’s beliefs being wrong.
Only Judy’s mom thinks Judy would be a better president than the current republican contenders.
Judy served all those years in prison not due to an extra letter, but because he held hundreds of people hostage.
“I hear it was checked out by every attorney and
every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape.they can not believe what they are finding.”I could not resist going there.
Only that is not what John Jay said. He suggested that we exclude “foreigners,” not foreign influence. It’s easy to make your historical point if you put your own words in the mouths of the historical sources. So let’s use Jay’s actual word. Now tell me, which of the following would John Jay call a “foreigner”?
John McCain
Barack Obama
Bobby Jindal
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Rick Santorum
Chester A. Arthur
Jay’s own children born in Europe
Justice Ginsburg’s grandson born in Paris
“under Cuban law, RETAIN their Cuban citizenship for life. Cuban law does not recognize the Children of Cubans to be U.S.Citizens. This would make Rubio and Cruz subject to the Cuban Military draft. Recently, U.S. Embassy officials in Cuba have officially apprised the two of this fact.”
Good job, Robert Laity. Now you nut jobs seem to think Cuba gets to decide who is a natural born U.S. Citizen and eligible to be president. Do you have any idea how stupid that position is?
No. Obviously, you don’t. Because stupid.
You could add to the list, President Hoover’s sons born in London.
Good. Then we can be friends, although we disagree on certain things.
In reality, few friends agree on everything anyway.
An excellent point. Certainly no one born on American soil, whatever the citizenship of his parents, was regarded a foreigner. And it seems doubtful to me that a child born to US parents overseas, who then returned to the United States, even if it was upon attaining adulthood, who took up his duties as a citizen here, would’ve been regarded as a “foreigner” either.
Okay, probably not. But I don’t really trust Trump to be consistent in his position. Seems to me he’s the kind of guy who might find it fairly easy to go back on something he said earlier, if he thought it was in his interest to do so.
@Bob [but because he held hundreds of people hostage.]
@Bob is being very modest, trying to deceive someone, or is delusional. There were 17,000 to 23,000 by all Records there.
@Bob has a Hemmoroid. I think I’ll call it “Cody” it’s inflamed at anything CRJ says.
@ Bob further exagerates charges that had nothing to do with [Hostages] In @Bobs mind if you were speeding 5mph over the speed limit, you’d be guilty of [Attempted Vehicular Homicide ] and he might throw in the school zone to make it even bigger
I hope we can take @Bob as a grain of certain salt and understand he’s just a little pepper on the potato and a very good example of the bad cop that shoots to kill you for not producing your licence fast enough or the Judge who would deny you right to vote based solely on your race, color, or previous condition of servitude in violation of the XV Amendment.
I guess that’s my 30 Seconds because I was attacked [debate rules]
@Doc [ So let’s use Jay’s actual word.Now tell me, which of the following would John Jay call a “foreigner”?
John McCain age 34.5 years of age
Barack Obama age 33.5 years of age
Bobby Jindal age 34.9 years of age
Ted Cruz age 8
Marco Rubio age 7
Rick Santorum age 6
Chester A. Arthur age 5
All the above are effectively considered illegal or foreigners to the Office of President.
So you’re John Jay now?
Judy is now bragging about the number of people he held hostage. That’s pathological.
The “charges” had nothing to do with hostages, but Judy’s actions certainly did.
11 unforgettable moments in recent LDS Church history:
And Judy is unapologetic about his hostage taking.
Speed and murderous intent are not necessarily related, but thanks for the inept analogy.
As I am neither a police officer nor a judge, I have no idea what Judy thinks he’s proving.
I am also not — unlike Judy — an unrepentant felon.
Everything Judy has said thus far has been as useful as a hemorrhoid.
@Dave B. [So you’re John Jay now?]
Well, Doc was first, Northlake 10 got seconds, I got thirds.
@Bob you know I do feel a great sorrow for LDS Pres Hunter for denying the B.O.M. , something he spent a life time professing religiously to believe in.
I feel sorry for the Eons of Hell he’s experiencing now of regrets he had on earth. That is sad.
Trump is already demonstrated his inconsistency: He refuses to acknowledge his previous belief that President Obama is ineligible.
Doesn’t mean he’s going to file a lawsuit against Cruz. You and Judy, however, may continue to believe otherwise.
Maybe we could use one of those “crowdfunding” sites to finance a campaign to get some tiny island nation to change its national motto to “Cradle of World Leaders”, and amend its constitution to include “Every person elected to be the chief executive of a G-7 nation shall be considered a natural born citizen of Framistan”.
The birthers would be compelled to challenge every candidate, but they couldn’t, because the fact that being elected makes one ineligible means that nobody, not even a candidate, would have standing.
It’d be like a scene from Star Trek, where they pose an impossible problem to the deranged robot: all across the country, birthers would start going catatonic and spontaneously exploding 😛
https://youtu.be/G6o881n35GU
Northlake 10? Might I suggest you slow down before responding? It could help you better understand what was said and aid in creating a response that is not full of errors.
I remember the good old days when we pointed out to the “can’t be citizen of other countries and natural born” that North Korea could declare every American citizen a North Korea citizen too and throw our country into a leaderless void…
And now they’ve move from the asia communists to the american communists…
It’s a good thing for them hate is transferable.
You think that your obtuse statement changed my assessment? I am a subject matter expert on the issue.
Why should I thank you. You haven’t swayed my opinion. Obama,McCain and the GOP4 are ineligible frauds.
I filed with the Ballot Law Commission since.
You don’t speak for me. I don’t “Know” that. I know that The GOP4 are ineligible.
The Constitution of the United States and not UK law determines who is eligible. Article II requires that one be a “Natural-Born Citizen”-One born IN the US to Parents who are both Citizens themselves. That is all I am concerned about. As for foreign influence,that is the prime reason that the NBC mandate exists. To prevent that.
So you think that Bricks have feelings? And they call me “Crazy”?
I do not hide from criticism. I am always anxious to express my opinion on this subject. I believe that there are issues with misprision of felony in both the Congress and the Courts. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, went so far as to admit to Congressman Serrano, at a Congressional hearing, that SCOTUS Justices are “EVADING the issue”. I have spent the last (7) years studying the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” and am 100% confident in my understanding of it. The founders wanted 100% Americans to be our “President”. One born in the United States to Parents who are both Americans themselves. The courts have dismissed cases on such things as “Standing” not on the the merits of the case. As Thomas said. SCOTUS is “evading the issue” because it is a proverbial “Hot Potato”. The fact is that the statement in Minor v Happersett defining an NBC is still “Good law”.
How many cases has your expertise won you, “counselor”?
I know that your ballot challenge will be rejected.
I have spent last seven years studying birthers, and I am 100% confident your challenge will be rejected. Because it is legally erroneous. And I’m 100% confident you will continue to believe your are correct, notwithstanding being repeatedly rejected in the reality-based world.
Around a dozen court cases have expressly said that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship, which is why your challenges to Rubio, Jindal, and Santorum will be summarily rejected.
If, for the sake of discussion, you are correct and two citizen parents are required just how would that “prevent” foreign influence upon a person later in life?
What is a 100% American?
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, a person’s parents are both Americans (Natural born or naturalized, does it make any difference to you?) but when he/she is 2 years old they are both killed in a terrible accident. He/she has no memories of them. The child is then adopted by relatives who were born in Mexico (or any country you wish) and are legal permanent residents. The child is raised to adulthood by them.
When the person is 35 years old he/she decides to seek the Presidency.
Is he/she eligible?
And there you have it.
Cruz and Rubio were born before the 1976 Cuban Constitution was enacted at a time when the nation was acting ex-constitutionally under a suspended 1940 Constitution. The 1976 Constitutional article 32 is inapplicable as are the entire document. In any event, Cruz and Rubio are still ineligible to be President of the US.
You obviously do not understand the concept of sarcasm.
No you’re not or you wouldn’t behave the way you do.
Never said I did.
Yes you do. I have seen it explained to you many times, simply and clearly and conclusively. Of course, I realize you will not acknowledge that fact. “Knowing” and “Acknowledging” are two different things. A guy going 100mph in a 70mph zone “knows” what the speed limit is, just because he doesn’t acknowledge that the law applies to him doesn’t change that fact.
I simply don’t believe you and the fact that you say it over and over doesn’t mean it is true.
You cannot be both a “subject matter expert” as you claimed to Lupin above and “know that The GOP4 are ineligible”. The two concepts are existentially incompatible.
The only conclusion is that you are a narcissistic liar.
Since you seem to believe that the 1940 Cuban Constitution controls, it would behoove you to actually read it.
ART. 11. Cuban citizenship is acquired by birth or by naturalization.
ART. 12. Cubans by birth are:
1st. All those born in the territory of the Republic with the exception of the children of aliens who may at the time be in the service of their Government. [Cruz and Rubio were not born in Cuba]
2nd. Those born in foreign territory, of Cuban father or mother, by the sole act of their becoming inhabitants of Cuba. [Neither Cruz nor Rubio has become an inhabitant of Cuba]
3rd. Those having been born outside the territory of the Republic, of father or mother who were natives of Cuba, but who may have lost this nationality, who reclaim Cuban citizenship in the form and subject to the conditions stipulated by law. [Any Cuban citizenship which Cruz and Rubio may have had was lost the moment they became U.S. citizens (see Article 15.1) and they have never claimed Cuban citizenship]
4th. Aliens who served for one year or more in the army of liberation, remaining in it until the termination of the War of Independence, provided they affirm this service with an authentic document issued by the national archive. [not applicable to Cruz and Rubio]
ART. 15. The following lose Cuban citizenship:
1st. Those who acquire a foreign citizenship. [Both Cruz and Rubio acquired U.S. citizenship at birth}
Cruz and Rubio are indisputably citizens of the United States at birth. According to the 1940 Cuban Constitution, whatever right they had to Cuban citizenship was lost the moment they became U.S. citizens. They could conceivably attempt to reclaim Cuban citizenship, but they would have to take proactive steps to do so.
My grandmother was born in Ireland, so I am eligible for Irish citizenship, just as Cruz and Rubio may be eligible for Cuban citizenship. That does not change the fact that I am a natural-born citizen of the United States, just as Cruz and Rubio are natural-born citizens.
http://paxety.com/Site/1940Constitution.html
Nothing more convincing than someone proclaiming himself an expert, is there?
I am an expert on the Natural Born Citizenship issue effecting candidates for President and V.P.
That wasn’t sarcasm. You attributed feelings to bricks.
And your “expertise” has led to no tangible results in the real world.
Rubio’s parents were not naturalized when Marco was born. Marco’s recent visit to Cuba would have been all that was necessary for his Cuban Citizenship to be activated had it been prior to 1976. The fact that such entry into Cuba may still be sufficient enough to activate his Cuban citizenship is what he and Cruz were warned about.That is a serious encumbrance to being President of the USA.
You are an NBC only if your parents were both Americans when you were born and if you were born IN the US. If Cruz or Rubio visited Cuba at all for any amount of time prior to 1976 their Cuban citizenship would have been activated. The 1940 Cuban Constitution was suspended in 1952 and was not unsuspended until the 1976 Constitution was enacted. Cruz and Rubio were born in the ex-constitutional era. It was the laws that were operative between 1952 and 1976 that control. In any event Rubio,Cruz,Jindal and Santorum are ineligible to be POTUS under U.S. Law as is Obama,McCain and Swarzenegger.
And we all know that you shouldn’t anthropomorphize bricks.
They hate that.
And if we had some cheese, we could have some cheese and crackers, if we had some crackers.
Actually, the 1940 Constitution wasn’t suspended, it was supplanted by the Constitutional Act of 1952. According to Cuban scholar Jose A. Ortiz, “Substantively, the Constitutional Act of 1952 was virtually identical to the Constitution of 1940.” (LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW, June, 2000) The differences primarily were related to property rights and the process for amending the Constitution.
If you have any evidence that the Constitutional Act of 1952 changed the rules on Cuban citizenship, let’s see it.
Please cite even one history text, Constitutional law text, or civics text which states that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents.
I don’t think you understand. I didn’t expect my email to have any impact on your opinion but the NHSOS and NHAG are more than likely interested the current case law. These four cases and the half a dozen additional cases clearly showed that the courts consider Wong Kim Ark as the binding precedent for the meaning of the term natural born citizen.
I realize that this reality will never change your opinion. But it is the law.
Mr. Laity,
I simply cannot stand by and not laugh when you proclaim yourself a subject matter expert on the subject of the phrase “natural born citizen,” while telling off a French lawyer with actual expertise in translating French legal documents.
Following that you make a blanket definition of “natural born citizen” with no legal, historical, or factual backing.
While you are many things, a serious threat to anyone’s legal standing is not one of them.
You will simply dismiss me, because your superiority complex demands it. You can dismiss all the laughter, but we are the ones enjoying ourselves.
I didn’t attribute anything to bricks. My name isn’t Lupin.
“ART. 12. Cubans by birth are:
. . . . .
2nd. Those born in foreign territory, of Cuban father or mother, by the sole act of their becoming inhabitants of Cuba.”
So by merely visiting Cuba one becomes an inhabitant thereof?
Notice how Mr. Laity selectively picks and chooses which parts of Cuban law he chooses to believe are still in effect.
On the one hand, he claims that if Cruz or Rubio were to become inhabitants of Cuba, they would immediately be recognized as Cuban citizens (Article 12.2 of the 1940 Constitution).
On the other hand, he refuses to acknowledge that Cruz and Rubio lost any claim they had to Cuban citizenship when they became U.S. citizens (Article 15.1 of the 1940 Constitution). He also chooses to ignore Article 12.3, which states that Cubans who lost their citizenship are required to actively reclaim that citizenship if they want it reinstated.
Okay, nothing is more convincing than someone making the wording of their self-proclamation of expertise more specific.
SIMPLY CANNOT ESCAPE THE PROFOUND WORDS which shows #clinton2016 weak and #CRJ2016 strong #Democrats These are actually profound words in light of #France conducting sortie tonight!
It’s all very well to have a compassionate, multi-cultural vision in principle, but in practice we do not seem to know who is among us, and whether they share our values.
“The political classes cannot keep saying – as Merkel is saying – that ‘there is nothing to see here’, that the problem is not related to Islam, when everyone can perfectly well see that it is.
“If mainstream governments keep letting cultural sensitivities stand in the way of a robust assessment of the situation, then the far-Right will only exploit this issue further, and turn to ever more reductionist and populist solutions.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995821/Paris-attacks-have-put-a-dagger-through-the-heart-of-liberal-Europe.html
It is not the strength shown outside our borders that I question #DemDebate Candidates, and respectfully former Madame Secretary, but it is the strength within our borders that I question.
The Broad brush relates; “I’d rather put my own family at risk for the sake of getting elected by anyone who can provide an address but is not a registered voting citizen or who may be an illegal alien sympathizer, by familia relations or friendship, then protect my own family with the laws on the books and our U.S. Constitution. ”
Ask yourselves who was helped more politically with the #Paris France tragedy?
One incident like that, #Clinton2016 is through!
Now, if this entire site is dedicated and committed to Mr. #Trump2016 carry on
#Obama2016 shall never be.. Its time to stand up for your families. The ones right next to you, not the possibly ISIS infilterated Syrian refugees.
It only takes 1 incident.. And you have sealed Mr Trumps and a much more radical right into power by your devotion to infilterating the Office of the President with foreign 🔥 loyalties and sympathies.
You will each be asking yourself , “Was it worth it? ”
Through any of that .. My resolve and answer taking ALL the grief I have here is a resounding YES. I do not have regrets. I hope this for you also.
It’s also worth noting that Laity, like Cody Robert Judy, is a two-time loser at the Supreme Court.
In 2004 the V.A. denied Laity’s claim for service-connected disability due to PTSD and MVPS (mitral valve prolapse syndrome). Like Judy, he decided to represent himself. According to court records, he failed to provide medical evidence that he even has PTSD and MVPS, much less that the conditions are related to his service in the Navy. His appeal was denied and SCOTUS denied cert.
Laity v. State of New York was a ballot challenge in which Laity objected to the Board of Elections’ inclusion of President Obama on the 2012 ballot. Once again he represented himself and once again he lost. He eventually appealed to SCOTUS, which of course denied cert.
Laity does have a better grasp of the English language than Judy, but his grip on reality is just as tenuous.
Justice Thomas did say they were evading the issue, but the issue in question had NOTHING to do with President Obama’s eligibility. The issue was Re. Serrano’s own eligibility. Serrano was born in Puerto Rico. It’s been a very long-running joke between Thomas and Serrano, dating back at least 10 years. It’s come up numerous times as Serrano is on the committee that oversees the Court’s budget.
Here’s the March 2007 budget hearing that refers to the joke, starting at 2:20.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?197007-1/fiscal-year-2008-supreme-court-budget
Please stop using this as a talking point. It has nothing to do with Obama or any candidate not born in Puerto Rico.
This is something that’s interesting in the psychology of birthers.
Normally, people will hear an idea – say, Obama’s ineligible – and say, “someone ought to bring a lawsuit,” and then when 10 or 20 lawsuits all fail, they’ll conclude, “Well, that theory must’ve been wrong.”
Or, perhaps better example: They’ll hear, “Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.” They’ll go and look at the evidence, pro and con, for 3 or 4 claims and when they see that the first 3 or 4 claims really don’t make sense, they’ll conclude, “Ah, this must just be a bunch of stupid bull.”
Not the hard-core birthers. With the hard-core birthers, a scorecard of 0-250 in the courts doesn’t matter. The fact that every forgery theory has been disproved – dozens of them – doesn’t matter, either.
There’s simply no amount of evidence that will put them in touch with reality.
I’m just saying it seems possible to me. You yourself note he doesn’t seem to be particularly consistent. In that, we seem to be in agreement.
Where’s that air popper?
Wow, how did I miss this?
Brief version:
1. Contrary to birther belief, Chester Arthur was not a “usurper.” He was legally elected to Vice-President, legally ascended to the Presidency, and legally served as US President.
2. Contrary to birther belief, Barack Obama is not a “usurper.” He was born in Hawaii, his birth certificate is not a forgery (or at least, there isn’t the SLIGHTEST evidence that it is), and he CLEARLY meets the Constitutional qualifications to serve as President. He was legally elected, and legally reelected.
3. Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility has been confirmed and re-confirmed not only by the State of Hawaii, but by our court system, I forget how many times, but it’s several.
4. ALL United States Presidents have been natural born citizens.
5. The first 7 Presidents were NOT “grandfathered in,” in the sense that they never had any need to use the “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” clause.
6. All of the above matters have been beaten to death in discussions here and elsewhere – you should search this blog’s thousands of articles and comments and read them all – and there is not a single statement above that is in doubt by any significant authority, or by anyone who is truly well-informed and unbiased.
7. I know subject matter experts on the definition of “natural born citizen.” Such subject matter experts are friends of mine. And Mr. Laity, you’re no subject matter expert.
All of the above is useless, of course, because you can’t teach a pig to sing, you can’t change a leopard’s spots, and you can’t possibly educate a birther.
Laity’s LinkedIn page is amusing. He says that he has an Honorary J.D. from the American Justice Foundation, which sounds impressive until you find out that anyone can get one by paying $249 for an online course called “How to Win in Court.”
It also appears that Laity may be enrolled at William Howard Taft University, where he presumably hopes to follow in the steps of renowned Taft graduate Orly Taitz.
He also claims to be a trained legal assistant and private investigator.
Lupin never said that bricks have feelings.
Your response speaks for itself as to your ability (or lack thereof) to engage in intelligent discourse.
Then you, sir, have wasted 7 years. Seriously.
It’s not even close. I mean, we could re-argue this whole thing (and some of us probably will) but it seems rather pointless as it’s been gone through here in infinite detail many times before.
The short version is: No one who matters in the slightest agrees with you. In fact, they all – scholars, courts, Supreme Court Justices, and prominent writers on the law (along with unbiased and intelligent lay people who’ve read both sides of the argument) – think that your claim – that it takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen – is at best completely wrong, and at worst, unbelievably idiotic.
That’s a good question.
So Robert:
Where are you a professor of Constitutional Law? Any university of note?
Where are your scholarly articles on Constitutional Law published? Any publication of note?
How many times have you been cited on the definition of “natural born citizen” by the US Supreme Court, or by any court, for that matter?
How many legal cases have you won that touched on Constitutional Law? How many legal cases have you won, period?
Failing that, what have you written at all? And why should anyone believe you?
I mean, a true and recognized subject matter expert should be able to answer those questions.
So it ever is with these “I’m a legal genius and know more than the courts, even though I’m a ‘qualified legal assistant’ and the organization I’m President of consists solely of me, my mom, and my cat” types.
So, wait… Let me get this straight.
You’re saying that Cruz and Rubio are Cuban citizens, even though the current government in Cuba doesn’t recognize them as Cuban citizens, because the government that Castro overthrew back in… 1959… is the true, real Cuban law that must be followed even though the Cubans themselves haven’t followed it in decades and never will again?
And because of that law of the Cuba that no longer exists, that controls OUR United States law to the extent that it makes Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ineligible to be President.
Please forgive me…. and perhaps I have grossly misunderstood your claim…. but….
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAA!!!!
Amend that to note that even by the 1940 Constitution, neither Rubio nor Cruz are Cuban citizens, and never were.
No, you aren’t. Just because you claim you’re an expert doesn’t mean diddly.
Let me illustrate the concept for you.
I, by the way, am a frankfurter. Yes, I know it’s unusual to find a frankfurter who can type and discuss the meaning of “natural born citizen” on the internet, but I assure you, it’s true.
I’m a frankfurter. Or, to be more specific, I’m an Oscar Mayer wiener. I’m made with chicken & turkey, and a bit of pork added. And believe me, baby, I’ve been inspected for wholesomeness by United States Department of Agriculture.
By the way, I’m in an enviable position, because everyone is in love with me!
Now did claiming to be a frankfurter make me one? Of course not.
Let me be… heh, heh… frank with you here, Robert.
You, sir, are no more an expert on the meaning of “natural born citizen” than I am a frankfurter. That much has already been made evident in the course of a very short conversation.
Real experts don’t have one of the first claims they make conclusively proven wrong by a lay person in an informal discussion on the internet.
You might make a note of that for future reference.
PS – It’s “affecting,” not “effecting.”
Now, now. You left out that he had to pass the Final Exam with at least a B in order to earn his Juris Doctorate, AND it may have taken an entire weekend to get through the course.
Sadly, you may THINK you are an expert, but in fact you know very little, and whatever you THINK you know has been proven false a million times.
Actually, your ignorance of the “subject matter” is rather awe-inspiring.
Bricks 1 – Laity 0.
I rest my case.
It’s a shame you didn’t spend half-an-hour to consult with a French attorney — any French attorney really — that could have explained to you that there is no such requirements (ie TWO parents citizens) in Vattel, who also recognized jus soli as a perfectly proper if different way if defining natural citizenship.
Also it is hard to take your so called expertise seriously when you were ignorant of the fact that James Madison (before he ran for president) enthusiastically accepted French citizenship, something that was cleared by president Jefferson in person.
The only think you prove is that you are just as ignorant of the facts as Cody.
Well slap me silly and call me Susan.
(That’s from
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109288/ )
“Any. Day. Now!”
How did that lame, fabricated excuse work out for you?
Oh right….
Waaaaaahhhhhhhh
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
Does repeating it over and over, while holding your breath and stomping your feet, lend your ranting more truthinness?
So,
Do tell Mr Laity, precisely what is it that makes you “an expert on the Natural Born Citizenship issue”…?
I know you have stated, without demonstrable proof that you have
“have spent the last (7) years studying the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” and am 100% confident in my understanding of it. ”
So, do tell, what EXACTLY have you done to make you an acknowledged ‘expert’..?
Have you published peer reviewed documents of the issue..?
Have you studied the matter at some august establishment of learning..?
Do you have a degree, qualification or generally accepted background in the field..?
Have you been in court and ben reviewed and accepted as an expert..?
I could continue but, well, you should grasp the tenor of this inquiry, shouldn’t you..?
Basically, you’re a pathetic and sad little man, with delusions of adequacy and relevance, with neither the background, intellect or ability to support your mad little theories
Mad little theories which real courts, real experts and real judges have all ruled as void of truth, fact or historical basis.
You can and undoubtedly will continue your silly little race fuelled crusade but, as with the rest of your life, it along with the ‘accomplishments’ of every other birther will never amount to anything there than a marginally humorous and rapidly forgotten minor side note in Obama’s history
So two North Koreans who just naturalized yesterday can have an NBC child, but two direct descandants of George Washington (one an NBC US citizen, the other a Canadian who moved to the US 50 years ago but didn’t naturalize – or, alternatively, an NBC US citizen who just renounced his citizenship yesterday) cannot?
I don’t think you thought that through.
The Founders, however, did, that’s why they did not give a hoot about who your parents were (especially considering the impossibility of actually *proving* parentage two centuries before DNA testing).
According to you, the King of England could impregnate a US citizen woman, pay her $$$ to claim the father was a citizen, and the child would be an NBC, right?
You persist in putting words in the mouths of our Founders. As long as you impose your own definitions and words on the historical sources, you may study for the rest of your life and still come up with the same mistaken conclusion.
The only Framer who (to my knowledge) commented on the reason for the natural-born citizen clause said it was to insure “experience and attachment to the country.” Charles Pinckney.
I have an article titled The Framers on Foreign Influence that an open minded person might find informative.
Birther’s seems to set a low bar being an expert. Vogt and Irey declared themselves to be experts even though they never held a single credential to be an expert in document examination or computer forensic analysis. Mario Apuzzo still claims to be a Constitutional expert without have tried and won a single case on Constitutional law or written a single peer reviewed, published paper on anything to do with the Constitution. Now Laity comes along and tells us an expert because he has had the same wrongheaded notions for seven years. 😆
Did anyone remind Laity that the same Ballot Law Commission dismissed a challenge against Barack Obama in 2011 based on the same theory? That eliminates three of the four candidate challenges right away. That leaves Cruz. I would say the chances of the Commission agreeing to remove Ted Cruz are minuscule.
My question is why can’t Laity get any NH legislators to sign on to his challenge? Taitz even got four IIRC Crazy legislators seem to grow like weeds up there in NH.
Who could forget those crazy Birthers acting like children following the loss in 2011?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP_3UiXPBKY
Anyone who says something like that may immediately be dismissed as a nut case. If you don’t believe in our Constitution and our Constitutional process for electing the president of the United States then I would say get the hell out and find some country that believes your fantasies. Don’t let the proverbial door hit you in the proverbial ass.
You omitted to mention the confirmation by Congress, because no member of Congress raised any objection when they had the opportunity. So nobody in Congress has any doubt about the eligibility of Mr. Obama, not even the crazy nutters that idiots like Judy and Laity undoubtedly drool over.
It is sad that Laity thinks he’s an expert when he is, in fact, a buffoon. He has the same delusions of adequacy as Mario Apuzzo has. They both fail, fail, fail again and can find no-one (other than a handful of nutters) who agrees with their buffoonery.
These three clowns, Laity, Apuzzo and Judy, need to learn that refusing to accept that you have lost is NOT the same as winning. They all lose, they convince no-one, they are ridiculous.
Didn’t Laity learn his lesson last time when NBC tore him apart when he was trying to claim that Obama was a traitor using some case which totally didn’t say what Laity thought it said?
And there you go lying again. You’ve said this many times and had it pointed out to you that you’re lying about what issue they were evading. They’re evading whether someone born in Puerto Rico, like Rep Serrano, could be President. Puerto Rico has a different status at birth than those born on American Soil.
Apparently he wasted his money on that course as he isn’t winning in court.
What did the group that you terrorized think you were saying?
I especially find funny how birthers keep quoting John Jay’s
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
as if that in any way defined NBC, let alone confirm the Vattelist view.
I don’t know why you’ve taken it upon yourself to treat me as if I’m a moron and a birther, for simply holding and expressing the reasonable opinion that – given Trump’s past track record, his apparent lack of integrity and the small amount of legal question that remains regarding the status of persons born US citizens overseas – that it’s just possible that if Ted Cruz were to beat Donald Trump for the nomination, Trump might file a legal challenge to that.
I can tell you this, though. It’s a bit annoying. So if that was your purpose, you’ve succeeded.
Actually, Dr Conspiracy has an entire web site that an open minded person might find informative. There are many treasures of information hidden in the archives.
In fact, the gold coins aren’t in the bucket of birther mud. They’re buried in the archives of this site. If you were smart, you would dig them out and learn from them.
That’s what smart people do. They start out open minded, and learn, instead of picking a position and clinging to it no matter what evidence arises to show they’re wrong.
Yes, good point.
Of course it is possible (many things are possible), but possible is not probable. You may believe your opinion to be reasonable. But the only other person here to express the belief that Trump might challenge Cruz is … Judy.
Pete
I was going to say the same thing about Trump. If anyone were to file a challenge it would be Trump. He is a loose cannon and seems to be able to say and do crazy things with complete impunity. Any normal candidate would be immediately labeled as a sore loser for filing a challenge. With Trump the press would say it’s Trump being Trump.
Still I doubt Trump would do it and besides that Cruz isn’t going to win.
That’s certainly true, at least to this point in time.
On the other hand, no one here besides you has expressed a strong belief that Trump definitely would not challenge Cruz, if Cruz were to beat Trump for the nomination. (It’s almost certainly not going to happen, but we are talking in hypothetical terms here.)
Personally, I believe Cruz is eligible. However, I don’t think there’s any real dispute that the eligibility of persons born US citizens overseas (unlike the NBC status of persons born on US soil to resident alien parents) has not yet been affirmed by the US Supreme Court. This thread, and the law review article that underlies it make clear that while most scholars believe Cruz is Constitutionally eligible, there is at least some argument to be made for the other side.
Whether that argument is correct, is another matter. The point is that such an argument can intelligently be made. In this case, the argument has been made by a Professor of Law who holds degrees from Yale and Cornell.
That being the case, I simply don’t see why an opinion that Donald Trump might – not would, but might – file a legal challenge to a Ted Cruz nomination would be a radical idea.
Yes, I tend to agree with that.
I suppose part of my underlying thought on this is: Trump has already publicly declared his bit about having investigators looking into Obama’s birth certificate and “they cannot believe what they’re finding.” That was years ago now, and he’s never publicly disavowed birtherism. Nor does he shy away from saying or doing controversial things. He is, as you say, a loose cannon.
I will add this: McManamon’s paper is definitely contrarian. She goes against the tide of most other scholars.
However, that fact alone doesn’t necessarily mean she’s wrong. Right or wrong is in the correctness of an argument, rather than its popularity.
Of course, in law, the only people ultimately qualified to judge the correctness of an argument – and on more complex issues they themselves often disagree – are the nine Justices of the US Supreme Court.
With the exception that if Congress decided that a particular individual were qualified to be President when carrying out their Constitutional duty of approving a President, SCOTUS would not be able to say otherwise.
I was wondering how many of the candidates (like Trump) were birthers or liked to play footsies with the birthers. Since ballot challenges don’t cost much, it would be fun to challenge their candidacies using their own words against them. 😀
Trump might do an infinite amount of things. Trump might eat his hairpiece on national TV. Trump might name Judy to be his U.S. Attorney General. But the irrational exuberance over what is possible is a trait associated with birthers. We all might want to see Zullo frogmarched out of Judge Snow’s courtroom; while possible, that isn’t going to happen either.
I agree with RC that if any top-tier candidate is going to file a ballot challenge, it will most likely be Trump. And I share RC’s doubts that it will actually happen, namely because the combination of factors necessary for Trump to be so motivated is vanishingly small.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that there are two aspects to it.
1) There’s the legal aspect. It seems to me that the Supreme Court could, in theory, declare – as the result of a lawsuit – that a person accepted by Congress was in fact ineligible.
I base this on the fact that the Supreme Court has the power to declare both Presidential actions and laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.
2) There’s the practical aspect. Would the Supreme Court in fact do such a thing? I seriously doubt it.
I am not a lawyer. Perhaps someone who is could provide elucidation if I’m wrong about #1.
In US v. Nixon (another Nixon) the Supreme Court refused to review an impeachment proceeding on the grounds that impeachment was assigned under the Constitution to one branch of government, the legislative. This is the political question doctrine. I believe that this same principle would apply to presidential eligibility. Some lower courts have cited this principle in dismissing Obama eligibility cases.
I have read both sides of the argument. The (7) years doing so, I do not consider wasted time. I have several people who agree with me including people in the professions that you mentioned. Your claim of “Bias” on my part is wholly unfounded and unsupportable. Biased against who? I have protested the bona-fides of both Democrats and Republicans, To reiterate, It was the founders intent to raise the bar for Presidents and Vice Presidents to require that it devolve ONLY to Americans with no trace of loyalty to any foreign nation. That can only be accomplished by requiring that it devolve only upon one born in the U.S. to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves, The term “Citizen” and “Natural-Born Citizen” are not Tantamount. John Jay agreed as did the court in Minor v Happersett. The GOP4 are not eligible to be President, Neither is Obama,McCain or Swarzenegger. If I was wrong about this and I am not, Congress would not have tried and failed to erode the requirement (8) times since 1975. There’s hope for us yet that others in Congress held their ground. A “Citizen” naturalized or “natural-Born” can be anything BUT the President of the United States of America
or V.P. for that matter. That requires 100% allegiance to the United States and it’s constitution. Obama is a usurper,fraud,traitor and spy under U.S. Law. If any of the GOP4 succeed in their attempt to follow they too will become spies.
I attempted to edit the above comment. A naturalized citizen can be anything but President or VP of the U.S. One must be an NBC to be President or VP.
None of the attempts to amend the Constitution had anything to do with people like Rubio or Jindal. Almost all of the attempts were meant to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible.
Having several other people agreeing with your opinion is meaningless. All of the recent court cases have ruled that it is settled law that anyone born in the US with a few exceptions are natural born. All of those courts agree that Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent. Judge Stansfield in Fair v Obama explained what people like you need to do to get the Supreme Court to overturn Wong Kim Ark or get Congress to pass a new Constitutional Amendment
That’s nothing. I have an honorary J.D. (pro hac vice) from the University of the Fogbow.
Only there is nothing from anyone in the founding generation that says this. In fact it is demonstrably false since the Constitution allows a President to have lived MOST of his life outside the United States. How can you say that someone who left the country at age 1 and lived for 50 years overseas, returned to the US and lived here for only 14 years has “no trace of foreign influence”? Yet the Constitution unarguably allows such a scenario. The 14 year residence requirement is there explicitly.
There is really no legitimate controversy over the eligibility of Marco Rubio, Bubby Jindal and Rick Santorum. As Judge Gibney said, this is well settled.
Where there is room for debate is in the case of the foreign born citizens at birth. I can make an originalist argument that at least some of our framers would have balked at a President who was foreign-born and foreign educated, whatever his birth citizenship, but even of 10 of them would have chosen to exclude such persons, that is not a majority at the convention. Sometimes compromise prevails. I think that it is also important to realize that not everyone in the legal system is on the same page. Sometimes court decisions get overturned on appeal, or reversed years later.
While I appreciate arguments based on the intent of the writers of a law, or the Framers of the Constitution, in the end I believe that we cannot rely on what was, or we think was, in their heads at some point in time, but rather on the objective text of the law they passed and the document they signed. And there is really no doubt what the term “natural born” means. It is a quality at birth. This is the ONLY dictionary definition, and the legal definition of natural born subject from English law agrees. “Natural born citizen” is not a nebulous term. We do not have to crawl into the heads of the Framers to figure it out. We to not have to make our decisions based on possibly overdue library books. The Framers, some of whom were English-trained lawyers, used a legal term of art with the sole meaning of “citizen from birth” and this is what they agreed to, and this is what the States ratified.
And it is well deserved.
Why do birthers believe that people who live in the reality-based world claim that there is no difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen? No one here is claiming that Arnold Schwarzenegger is eligible to be president. We all agree that a naturalized citizen cannot be president. However, Barack Obama is not a naturalized citizen. He was born a citizen.
‘
John Jay never said anything about a natural-born citizen’s parents.
Every court which has considered the matter has agreed that you,Mario Apuzzo, and all other birthers do not understand the decision in Minor v. Happersett. I asked your before if you can cite a single history, Constitutional law, or civics textbook which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. I have been asking this question of birthers since 2008 and I have yet to receive a response. Did they teach you the “two-citizen parent” requirement at the American Justice Foundation?
And let’s not forget that John Quincy Adams, from the age of 12 until he entered Harvard, was educated in France, the Netherlands, and Russia. It’s safe to say that he was influenced by those foreign educational institutions.
Yes! Like when COL Lind admitted that she was refusing to admit the birth certificate for fear it would embarrass the President!
So Robert, while there are quite a few actual lawyers here with REAL Juris Doctor degrees – and the equivalent of real J.D.s from nations such as France (very handy when it comes to Vattel) – it seems that everyone here has, at a bare minimum, academic qualifications that at least match your own.
I myself have a Juris Doctor Honoris Causa from Myarse University.
But you needn’t rely on the opinions of legal scholars such as ourselves, as distinguished as we may be.
I suggest you contact the 3 recognized, well-regarded law schools closest to you and locate a Professor of Constitutional Law from 3 different major law schools. Then ask each Professor of Constitutional Law the following questions:
1) Is it Constitutionally required that a person born on US have citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen?”
2) Does Minor v. Happersett give us a legal definition of “natural born citizen?”
3) Are Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum natural born citizens for the purposes of Presidential eligibility?
4) Is this settled law?
It really doesn’t matter what law schools you choose, only that they be mainstream, well-regarded law schools. (Hint: A law school is where they train REAL LAWYERS.) It doesn’t matter whether the law schools have a reputation for being “conservative” or “liberal.”
And it doesn’t matter which professors you choose, only that they be competent, mainstream professors of Constitutional law.
Now you really should go through this exercise, even though I’m going to spoil it for you a bit by giving you the answers in advance.
Question 1) Professor A: No. Professor B: No. Professor C: No.
Question 2) Professor A: No. Professor B: No. Professor C: No.
Question 3) Professor A: Yes. Professor B: Yes. Professor C: Yes.
Question 4) Professor A: Yes. Professor B: Yes. Professor C: Yes.
The judge actually said:
“Embarrass” in this context is used to mean to impede or hamper.
Of course. My point — perhaps too subtle — was that she was quoting from Baker v. Carr, which I consider illustrative of Doc’s point about how the Political Question doctrine has been applied in eligibility cases.
I think the Madison / Jefferson matter regarding the former’s accepting French citizenship with the approval of the latter totally contradicts what you say. So you’re either ignorant of your own history, or a liar. Your pick.
Everyone here knows that the “BOTH” bit was completely made up by Donofrio in 2008, based on a gross misreading of Vattel. There has never ever been such a requirement; ONE parent is the rule is virtually every similar circumstance. Again, you don’t seem to know that this could easily be traced to Donofrio. Ignorant or liar?
er…..afraid not.
i’m a motorcycle mechanic who left school at 15 and never went into further education (unless you count language classes)
i can tie my shoelaces OK though 😉
Whereas Laity only has an MD (in forma birtheris) from Crapola College.
The problem with birthers has nothing to do with education.
Right now, in France, I read things from very highly educated people which are (to be kind) complete nonsense. The current crisis has brought up the worse in some folks.
Ben Carson’s case springs to mind, too. A neurosurgeon who believes the great pyramid was built to store grain???
I doubt they actually believe that. I think it’s a straw man kinda deal.
Then – since you certainly should have at least as nice of a credential as Robert Laity’s honorary law degree – let me remedy that.
roadburner, on the basis of:
your long participation as a learner in this august forum,
your patriotic Defense of the truth,
your unwillingness to Suffer Fools gladly,
your accumulated Knowledge of Constitutional Law,
and for your Distinguished Contribution to the annals of Mankind,
& c.,
and by the Power vested in me on behalf of the Board of Regents of Myarse University, I do hereby Award you, roadburner,
the Honorary Degree of Juris Doctor Honoris Causa,
with all the Rights and Privileges, such as they are, appertaining thereto.
With my signature hereby affixed, this 17th day of 2015.
Signed, Pete, Chancellor, Myarse University
There you go, and congratulations.
Now when anyone asks where you received your honorary law degree, you can proudly tell ’em, “I got it from Myarse.”
roadburner: We now have a high-quality diploma available for you:
http://ibin.co/2MrJUjcG1prh
You can actually print that out yourself, or if you want, for a one-time nominal processing fee of just $89.95, I can print that out for you on quality multipurpose paper and mail you a copy.
sorry pete, but i happen to know the chancellor of myarse university is actually Hugh Janus
😀
Once you’ve bought into young-Earth creationism, your bar for “absurd” is set so high it’s a hazard to orbiting satellites…
And it’s a JPEG, with none of them thar commie layer thingies, so it must be gen-u-wine.
That’s a different branch. Myarse University is a large institution.
And yes, Ran! Completely flat image, no layers at all. Even the seal (which is HIGHLY VISIBLE) is completely flat, although it does have a 3d appearance.
But the no-layers, flat aspect means it definitely IS NOT a fake document of any kind.
Judge Wingate in Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party wrote a section in the decision titled “Federalism, Political Question and Separation of Powers.” He cites Baker and its application in recent Obama eligibility cases where the courts have invoked political question reasoning, specifically Keyes v. Bowen and Grinols. Wingate concluded:
“…this court can find no authority in the Constitution which would permit it to determine that a sitting president is unqualified for office or a president-elect is unqualified to take office.”
In Grinols, Judge England wrote:
“The Court finds that numerous articles and amendments of the Constitution together make it clear that the issue of the President’s qualifications and his removal from office are textually committed to the legislative branch, not the Courts.
…
“…the question presented by Plaintiffs in this case—whether President Obama may legitimately run for office and service as President—is a political question that the Court may not answer.”
In Rudy v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office et al (an Obama eligibility case) Judge Brinkema applies the criteria of Baker in dismissing this lawsuit which sought to invalidate a law because it had been signed by an ineligible president, concluding:
“Therefore, plaintiff’s request for a declaration that President Obama was not, and is not, a natural born citizen of the United States and is ineligible to be President of the United States is a question committed to another, political branch – Congress – and is non-justiciable.”
Judge Simandle wrote in the Kerchner< .em> case:
“…it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962).”
Judge Schack in Strunk vl NYBOE Et Al wrote:
“If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it may involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority of the Electoral College and Congress. Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court and other courts to refrain from superseding the judgments of the nation’s voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.”
So you’re saying Thomas Jefferson wasn’t really President?
Actually, that would be James Madison. Jefferson only agreed that Madison’s acceptance of French citizenship raised no issue and forwarded his letter (Madison’s) to the French Ambassador.
When one thinks of the geopolitical triangle involving the US, England and France at the time, it seems in fact slightly bonkers for someone like Madison (who wasn’t President yet but still was SoS) to actually accept such an offer. No one would have blamed him if he had politely turned it down.
Monroe, for one, was certainly bothered by this and wrote that it went against the notion of undivided allegiance, etc.
Think of the turmoil if Obama accepted Chinese citizenship today. My, the explosion at GerbilReport could be seen from the Moon. These were definitely simpler, maybe more idealistic times.
So Laity and the Birthers and all their ilk are WRONG on this issue. Two of the Founding Fathers, a sitting President and a future president, made what you might term an executive decision, and pending any new contradictory evidence, this has to be the last word on the subject for the time being.
That Laity who claims to have spent 7 years (!!!) researching this very subject never came across this is, in fact, rather mind-boggling. Heck, that factoid itself is on the Madison page on French wiki–hardly an arcane source of information.
I don’t think Laity is actually a liar; I think he is just awfully ignorant about the issue and a terrible researcher.
If the founders were opposed to a President with the slightest trace of loyalty to a foreign nation why is our friend Mr. Laity not opposed to Mr. Trump, whose Mother was Scottish and whose current wife was a citizen of Slovenia through 2006, or Mr. Bush, whose wife was a Mexican citizen.
Sounds like a foreign influence to me. Not to speak of the fact that Mr. Bush is fluent in Spanish and often speaks in that language.
Actually I’m not even talking about that. I’m talking about Jefferson’s loyalty to the french. According to Laity you can’t have loyalty to a foreign nation. Jefferson was deeply embroiled in french affairs and it’s one of the main reasons he stepped down as Secretary of State. Jefferson totally had divided loyalties.
You may not think it but I do. Laity is a liar. He’s been corrected on many of his false beliefs before only to repeat them later on. Like say his claim about the president being a traitor for visiting US military bases while at war. Or some nonsense. He then uses some case which he didn’t bother to read which has a specific definition of what being at war means. NBC nailed him on this one.
Then there’s his constant repeat of the Thomas “Evading the issue” story when he’s been corrected on his wrong interpretation repeatedly on it. I corrected him on this on twitter a while back. His response was to block me
Well, let me point out the (probably) indisputable here.
Whether Laity is a liar or not (and I tend toward the view that the great majority of birthers are an exquisite blend of idiot and liar), it seems certain that whatever he was reading and studying, he wasted those 7 years.
My, my. Where did it go?
http://i.imgur.com/ncwonit.gif
Laity’s getting some “helpful advice” in the comments over here:
http://www.wmur.com/politics/challenges-to-cruz-naturalborn-citizenship-to-be-heard-in-nh-next-week/36482768
Laity is a bitter 64-year-old who was disciplined by the Veterans Administration for using foul language when he worked there as a “housekeeper.” He subsequently filed a claim with the V.A. for a service-connected disability, saying that he had PTSD and a heart condition which he blamed on the three years or so when he was in the Navy. Of course, he failed to provide any medical evidence that he has either PTSD or a heart condition. Apparently he believed that the V.A. should just take his word for it.
He is so clueless that nine days ago he posted on Facebook a link to a blog post about CRJ’s Supreme Court petition, apparently unaware of the fact that SCOTUS closed it out on October 8.
This article names the two challengers; they are not names I recognize as birthers.
And still no love for Laity’s purported challenge.
One thing that seems clear is that almost everyone, legal experts included, defines “natural born citizen” as we do – someone who has been a US citizen from the moment of his or her birth, whether that occurred because he or she was born on US soil, or born to US citizen parent(s) abroad.
I found this about one of them:
Mayoral candidate Chris Booth faced misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and threatening in Canterbury in 2011, and charges of resisting arrest in Hinsdale in 2010. But the 64-year-old participated in a mental health court program, according to court records, and all charges against him have been dropped.
In March 2011, the police alleged Booth tore down an exit sign at Canterbury Shaker Village and defaced it with a political slogan. Booth, who was living on Shaker Road in Canterbury at the time, also allegedly threatened to slash his neighbor’s tires if his neighbor parked where Booth wanted to plant a tree. He was also charged with trespassing; the police said he entered Canterbury Shaker Village after an officer ordered him to stay away, at the request of the village’s director. All three charges are misdemeanors.
Booth said this week that he had simply been riding his bike at the time of the alleged trespassing, and the sign that he allegedly tore down had fallen down.
“None of this is important, though,” he said. “All the charges were false, and they were all dropped.”
Court records indicate that a judge in Concord’s district court ruled Booth incompetent to stand trial in April 2011. In June 2012, court records stated Booth would be admitted to mental health court.
The program takes several months and requires participants to attend weekly meetings with therapists, consistently take medications and stay out of trouble. Participants attend court weekly at first, and less often as they progress. Upon graduation from the mental health court program, cases are dismissed.
A judge dismissed Booth’s charges in Concord’s district court in January.
Booth also faced charges for resisting arrest and disobeying an officer in Hinsdale in December 2010.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/8740429-95/some-candidates-in-concord-city-election-have-faced-criminal-charges
Thanks; interesting. I hope the commission is not distracted by Booth’s competency.
In re-reading the New Hampshire Ballot Commission’s decision in Taitz v Obama, they seemed to only be interested in whether the candidate filled the paper work out correctly. LOL
2011-4
http://sos.nh.gov/2010-12BLC.aspx
Laity’s drawn first blood here: Jindal’s dropped out. I mean, it HAD to be because of Laity, right? What else could it have been?
Thanks for the link. Rehearing in that challenge was sought, and that denial cited New Hampshire law saying the commission’s decision is final; no judicial review is available.
So it is easy to predict the outcome of Laity, etc.,’s ballot challenge: The commission will find that Cruz properly completed the form, the commission won’t adjudicate eligibility, and the courts lack jurisdiction to review the commission’s decision.
So far over on that WMUR article I’ve discovered you can’t say nuts, or what the heck, or post a link. Moderation is so weird sometimes.
What the heck?
Nuts.
I can’t figure out what the heck they thought was wrong with the last one they held back. I had said that
“US law has never included a specific provision making children born abroad to serving military members citizens on the basis of that service,”
and y_p_w rightly pointed out that
“There is a law that makes a child born in Panama to a US citizen government employee a US citizen without residential requirements. That should include US military. It was written to address the possibility of generations of American government workers in Panama administering the Panama Canal. The law is still on the books.”
So I replied,
“Okay, that’s a very good point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. I will say, though, that that law (which was passed when McCain was nearly a year old) wasn’t specifically applied to members of the military, but to all employees of the US government and of the Panama Railroad Company (or its successor in title). The main reason for that particular subsection about Panama outside the Zone was that Colón Hospital was outside the Canal Zone, and there wasn’t another public hospital at the Atlantic end of the Canal.
And you’re absolutely right about the lack of residence requirements in that entire statute, which also provided for citizenship by descent in the Canal Zone. Congress was concerned over succeeding generations of Canal Zone residents who would never come to reside in the United States, and so would be unable under existing law to transmit citizenship to their children born, in turn, in the Canal Zone. The statute DID leave a bit of a hole, in that a child born in, say, Costa Rica– or any other foreign place– to a US citizen (or two US citizens) who had been born in, and always resided in, the Canal Zone would NOT be born a US citizen.”
Maybe it was the Colón. It reminds me of commenting at the Huffington Post– they had articles about the New Jersey ballot challenge where Alexandra Hill pasted Marius’s ass to the wall, and you couldn’t use plaintiff Ted Moran’s name in a comment, or post a link that had his name in it.
Congratulations on having 3 to 9 people in the entire United States who agree with you. Or at least said “sure” in order to get you out of their office.
Pretty good article about the New Hampshire ballot challenges:
http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2015/11/who-in-new-hampshire-gets-to-decide-if-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen
Professor Muller’s paper on the subject can be found here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2418517
Today is the day that challenges will be considered in New Hampshire. A new one was filed against Donald Trump:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-new-hampshire-ballot-216177
Trump had previously identified himself as a Democrat and as an Independent.
Andy Martin’s challenge of Democrat Bernie Sanders for not being a Democrat may be rejected for lack of standing (Martin is a Republican).
The challenge to Cruz is that he is not an American (natural born citizen).
So far I’ve seen no indication that Robert Laity’s challenge will be considered. This may be due to its being improperly filed.
I have found the web site of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission, and can confirm that Robert Laity’s challenge is
noton the list.http://sos.nh.gov/2015-16BLC.aspx
2015-4 is Laity’s
All challenges rejected.
Note the little line through “not” in my comment.
You can confirm nothing. My case was heard today. I received responses from Cruz and Rubio.
Wow, Robert, they didn’t even put your name in the ABC article.
You know nothing Jon Snow.
Rubio’s response.
I guess this is what passes for a birther victory: not being ignored.