NEW YORK STATE PLACED ON NOTICE OF BALLOT CHALLENGES FOR INELIGIBILITY
January 21, 2015
Commissioners NY State Board of Elections
Re: Laity v State of NY, U.S. Supreme Court
Dear Commissioners,
Remember me? I challenged the bona-fides of Barack Obama to be included on the NY State Ballot in 2012 and in 2008. Now comes the 2016 election cycle. I WILL be challenging the bona-fides of any Presidential Candidate in 2016 who is not a “Natural-Born [American] Citizen” per Article II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution. A “Natural-Born Citizen” is one born IN the United States IN ADDITION TO having been born of Parents who were BOTH American Citizens at the time said person was born. See: Minor v Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court.
It has become apparent that BOTH Major parties have proffered or are proffering ineligible candidates who are not Natural-Born Citizens.
A Partial list is as follows:
Barack Obama
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz
Bobby Jindal
Arnold Swarzenegger
Rick Santorum
John Mc Cain
I trust that you will honor your oaths of office this time and defend the Constitution. BTW, NY State’s interpretation “Born a Citizen” does NOT trump the United States Constitution. The requirement is that one must be a “Natural-Born Citizen” (100% Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli) which is NOT Tantamount to being a mere Jus Soli “Citizen”.
Robert C. Laity
Complainant
My problem with YOUR characterization of circumstances of identifying a U.S. natural born Citizen is the use of the ancient doctrines of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
I too, from 2008 to 2010 chased those red herrings. But the closed and more focused I look I could not find ANY mention of THOSE doctrines within ANY Congressional Act or subsequent Statute.
There is an uniform Rule that is construable under federal law.
The 1790 Act; “…an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization…” in its succinct 276 words expresses THE uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship, which in the words of Justice in the Talbot v Janson case named U.S. Citizenship as being “communicable”, however, being verbose, I characterize it by saying; “ Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”
Just as the 14th Amendments “collective naturalization declaratory born U.S. Citizen provision” MADE those emancipated cum STATELESS blacks U.S. Citizens concurrent with its Ratification, so too were all those who were acknowledged as a Citizen of any of the several States were MADE U.S. Citizens with the Ratification of the COTUS, the Genesis of U.S. Citizenship, noting that ANY prior date put forth would necessarily be a retroactive consideration.
The ONLY other major change to the circumstances of being “born as a U.S. Citizen” occurred in 1922 with the Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act. Prior to its passage a woman was considered as the same political character and citizenship as her husband, ergo, a child of a U.S. Citizen father was born to two (2) U.S. Citizen Parents. The consequence of the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act was the effects of a new hyphenated form of U.S. Citizenship, “dual-citizen” at birth, which is a distinctly different hyphenation that “natural born”.
Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, the uniform Rule, aka Doctrine, aka Common Law of U.S. Citizenship and subject to exceptions, conditions proscriptions and modification under the plenary power granted to the Congress at A1S8C4.
slcraig,…being verbose, I…or otherwise”. You introduced this term a couple of times and it leaves me wondering why I have never seen it before. In my opinion you just reinforced the notion that a person, whose parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, could become “natural born” whenever the parents become citizens. That is not what the Constitution says. Also you introduced “Common Law” which is not the basis of “natural born citizen”. Our founders used Emmerich De Vattel’s Laws of Nature and Nations where our natural rights are given by God. Maybe you missed the interview Sharon did with Tracy Fair where this was clearly spelled out. If you did here is the link http://www.unslaveamerica.com/.
Common Laws are created by man and can therefore be changed, hence the confusion. Going the Common Law route guarantees the destruction of this country mainly due to the “lawyers” ability to wordsmith and change the meaning to fit theirs or others’ intention. I give you “it depends of what the meaning of “IS” is. The fourteenth amendment does not trump or change Art. 2, Sec. 1, Para. 5
Semper Fi
You say;
“… you just reinforced the notion that a person, whose parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, could become “natural born” whenever the parents become citizens. ..”
..and MY knee jerk reply is Yes, if the child is born AFTER the alien is MADE a U.S. Citizen under the 1790, et seq, Acts.
And that is EXACTLY what the COTUS says.
Look, between March 1790 and Jan. 1795 a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen was born considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen NO MATTER WHERE in the world the child was born.
The repeal of the 1790 Act ONLY limited where a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born thereafter, but the ‘uniform Rule” which I recognize as a DOCTRINE and the U.S. Common Law on U.S. Citizenship.
Whether the Framers were considering the English Common Law or the “natural laws” as expressed by Vattel is of NO MATTER.
The Congress was given PLENARY POWER over the subject of U.S. Citizenship in the enumerated powers mandate of A1S8C4 and wrote the 1790 Act in its statutory form that is consistent with both.
The word “naturalization” as used in A1S8C4 MUST be taken as a “NOUN” signifying a “Political concept of citizenship and the processes of making citizens” without any restrictions or limitations other than there must be an uniform Rule of it, ergo, a Doctrine.
The words “common law” signifies a body of general laws that are commonly known and applied throughout a society.
AiS8C4 requires the Congress to establish a U.S. Common Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship with a Doctrine that can be applied uniformly throughout the U.S.
The Common Law of U.S. Citizenship expressed in the 276 words of the 1790 Act discloses the Doctrine of uniformity being accomplished by the communicability of “U.S. Citizenship” upon a persons progeny, i.e., Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise …………. ….subject to various provisions,exceptions, conditions and circumstances as may from time to time be found practical or useful by the U.S. Congress
There need be NO “Congressional Act” or “Staute” to define what the term “Birth in a Country”. or “Of Parents who are citizens”. Birth in a country constitutes Jus Soli or “of the soil”. Birth of Parents who are themselves American citizens constitutes American “Jus Sanquinis” or “of the blood” of Americans. These are not “Red Herrings”. These the natural state of PURE Citizenship in a country. One born IN a Country to Parents who are themselves citizens can only be and are Natural-Born Citizens. The 1790 Act was repealed. It mistakenly considered persons born “beyond the seas” as NBCs. To be an NBC requires that one be born ON the country’s soil IN ADDITION TO having been born of Parents who are BOTH Citizens of said country themselves. Those with mere “Jus Soli” are Citizens but they are NOT NBCs unless BOTH their parents also were at the time of birth of said person. NBCs are Constitutional “Citizens” as opposed to Statutory “Citizens” under Article 1, Sec 8.
Clarification: One’s Parents need not be NBCs themselves but BOTH must be American citizens at the time of birth of their child on U.S. Soil.
Parents must be citizens before their child is born on U.S. Soil. Rubio’s parents, for example became Americans after he was born making Rubio disqualified. Again, the 1790 Act was repealed. Those born abroad,even of Parents who are both Americans are NOT “Natural-Born Citizens”. If one wishes to have Children who are NBCs so that they can one day be POTUS,then one best NOT travel abroad when pregnant. It is immutable. ONLY those born IN a Country of Parents who are BOTH Citizens at the time of birth of said person’s birth is a “Natural-Born Citizen”. “Of this there is NO Doubt”-Minor v Happersett, SCOTUS.
Why are people saying Arnold Swarzenegger? He knows he’s ineligible to run.He’s been spending lots of money to get congress to change the Constitution so he will be eligible to run.
Rubio,Cruz and the others “Know” that THEY are “ineligible”. Swarzenegger “Knows” but will that stop him? I think not. The law has to be ENFORCED.
Sounds good Robert, but it may all fall on entitlement deaf ears again in 2016-seeing will be believing-as they now have mastered the art of changing and writing the law as they go! So, why would they pay attention to anyone not in their league of misprision? We saw the treason, perjury and election fraud with Obama in 2008, 2012 and maybe 2016. We have had copies of the DNC Vetting papers from 2008 when Pelosi and Biden falsified Obama’s eligibility. Nearly 7 years later and after having watched some of the best dozen attorneys in America attempt to expose criminal activity, serve criminal presentments that have gone no where as Democrats have threatened the judicial to use “no standing” rules to keep anything out of the court the might expose or lead to discovery. We have seen corruption in Monroe and McMin County in Tennessee completely out of control where Veterans that stand up against the DNC were thrown in jail illegally
“We the People” must make them hear us. Even to the point of American Revolution II if it comes to that. We have the right to revoke a tyrannical government. This has gone on for too long. I have a head start this time. I won’t make the same mistakes twice. This time I am going for the figurative jugulars.