Imposters in the Oval Office

“ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AMERICAN”

by Robert C. Laity, © Copyright 2017, All rights reserved, ISBN #978-0-692-98843-5

Were the Founding Fathers “Sovereign Citizens?”

(Nov. 19, 2017) — [Editor’s Note:  The following is the first five pages, plus a small portion of page 6, of a book registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by citizen researcher and disabled U.S. Navy veteran Robert C. Laity.  He has been kind enough to share the book with The Post & Email prior to publication.

The book is 41 pages and produced in easy-to-read large print.  For those wishing to purchase the book at this time, please send an email to robertlaity@roadrunner.com.]

Pursuant to Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 and the 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution, only a Natural Born U.S. Citizen can be President. Being a “natural born citizen” is the highest level of citizenship which exists. The legally established definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is will be discussed in this book. This eligibility requirement applies to only two positions in the entire federal government., that of President and Vice-President of the United States of America.

Why would the Founders insist that the Presidency devolve only upon a person who is a one hundred percent American?

It’s so that there would be no possibility of any foreign influence being interjected into the workings of our sovereign government. It was John Jay who first very strongly suggested that our President should be a “Natural Born Citizen”.

Originally the text of the constitution required the same level of citizenship that a Senator or Representative had to possess. That of “Citizen”. That would have meant that a President need not have even been born here. Many “Citizens” are not born in the United States and have attained that citizenship by naturalization.

John Jay did not believe that it was appropriate to allow a naturalized Citizen to be President. He wanted a higher standard of citizenship involved. What circumstances would have to be met in order to assure that there would be no doubt that our President had only American ties and loyalties?

Jay came up with requiring a President and Vice-President to be a “Natural Born Citizen”.  A Natural Born American would be a 100% American. He/she would be “Of the Blood” of Americans and “Of the soil” of America. He/she would have both Jus Soli and 100% Jus Sanquinis. No other type of Citizenship would suffice.

John Jay, one of the founders was also our nation’s first Chief Justice of the United States of America. The other signers of the U.S. Constitution agreed with John Jay and they incorporated the mandatory criteria that a President must be born in the United States to Parents who were both American citizens themselves. Indeed, this is what all the founders knew as the definition of what a natural born citizen is.

In the 18th Century, French was the language of Diplomacy. Many of the founders spoke French, especially Benjamin Franklin who served as an ambassador to France. There was a book, written in French and later translated into English, that Mr. Franklin brought back with him from Europe and that is still being used to this day. It is the same book that George Washington, our first U.S. President borrowed from the New York Society Library on October 5, 1789 and did not return. In the recent past, that Library was given another copy of the same edition of the book “Law of Nations”. The overdue fees of $300,000 were not requested by the Library but I would reasonably conjecture that a 1789 edition of the treatise would be worth as much or more. In French the “Law of Nations” is called “Les droits de Gens ou principe de le loi naturelle”. The Law of Nations is also incorporated into our constitution by reference at Article 1, Clause 8. It was translated from Latin into French by Emerlich Vattel. It was not originally written by him and has roots in Roman Law.

In the 18th century the book was ubiquitously used by both U.S. and British courts.  It was then widely known and understood that a natural born citizen is one born in a country to parents who were both citizens of said country. In the original French the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” is written “Les naturelles, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont, nes dans le pays de Parents Citoyens”.  The English translation is “The Natural born are those born in a country to parents who are both citizens”.

Several United States Supreme Court opinions have affirmed and reaffirmed this definition of what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. In one case, Minor v Happersett, 88US, 162 ,(1875) the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously opined that a “Natural Born Citizen” is “One born in the United States to Parents who are [both] U.S. Citizens themselves”. This opinion was reaffirmed in subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Venus, Shanks v Dupont and Wong Kim Ark. The prior cases were left undisturbed in Laity v NY, 13-875, USSCt.,cert.denied (2014).

It follows that anyone who was not born in the United States to Parents who were both U.S. Citizens themselves is not eligible to be President of the United States or for that matter, Vice-President of the United States.

In 1787 there were no “Natural Born” Citizens in the United States that met all the Article II, Sec. 1 Clause 5 criteria to be President or Vice-President. The founders understood this. They acted to grandfather in those persons who have stood for the cause of the American Revolution and Independence from England.  Our first “Natural Born” Citizen President, who met all of the Article II criteria, was Martin Van Buren, born in 1782 in the United States to Parents who were both U.S.

Citizens themselves. Every other President since Van Buren, has been born in the United States to Parents who were both U.S. Citizens themselves except two persons, who attained to the Presidency & who did not meet the Constitutional criteria. Barack Obama and Chester Arthur managed fraudulently to attain to the office of the Presidency and to usurp the office. They both were therefore, not bona-fide Presidents.

The usurpation of our highest office did not happen just once in our history, with Chester A. Arthur in 1881. It was allowed by nonfeasant powers that be to happen again with Barack H. Obama, one hundred and twenty seven years later in 2008 and once again in 2012. The first usurper Chester A. Arthur was born in the United States on October 5th,1829. His Father William Arthur, was born in Dreen, Ireland and was a British Subject. The fact that William Arthur did not naturalize as a U.S. Citizen until a full (14) years after Chester’s birth in Vermont, disqualified Chester A. Arthur from being President of the United States. Chester was (14) years old already when William finally naturalized as a U.S. Citizen.  Both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama unconstitutionally, illegally and illicitly exercised the authority of the Presidency. Authority that legally they did not have nor were ever entitled to.

Neither of the two was ever the bona-fide President of the United States.

Chester Arthur, “President #21” and Barack Obama “President #43” were counterfeit Presidents. They were never legally elected because they did not meet constitutional muster. That they do not meet the criteria set forth by law means that they were not bona-fide Presidents. Not being a Natural Born Citizen is a deficiency in meeting constitutional criteria, the  same as if a President weren’t thirty five years old or fourteen years a resident of the U.S. Obama and Arthur failed to meet all (3) mandatory criteria in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 to qualify as eligible to be President.

Chester Arthur destroyed the proof that would warrant his vacating of the Office of the Presidency. Regardless, It was discovered after his death when it surfaced that he was not a “Natural Born” Citizen of the U.S.  It was too late to do anything to stop Chester Arthur. However, it was not and is not too late to bring Barack H. Obama to justice. Obama is not a “Natural Born” U.S. Citizen. He said so himself on several occasions alluding to his “Kenyan and Indonesian roots”.

Obama claims that his Father was Barack Obama, Sr. and his Mother was Stanley Dunham. There is no acceptable or confirmable proof that these persons were Barack Obama, Jr’s actual parents. The Birth Certificate that Obama, Jr. proffered has been found by several independent and competent forensic document experts to be a forgery. This has been confirmed by separate forensic studies.

59 Responses to "Imposters in the Oval Office"

  1. W. Kevin Vicklund   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:11 AM

    On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Robert Laity wrote, in part:

    “As for my case at the NY State Court of Appeals against Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and the State of NY, NO. The Court has not dismissed the case. In fact they denied motion by the State to do so. The case is still pending.”

    Later that day, the NY State Court of Appeals released the following order in Mr. Laity’s case:

    “On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

    Motion for leave to appeal denied.”

    I appear to have missed the P&E story covering this development and Mr. Laity’s response.

  2. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 1:21 AM

    TF Bow, Technically Hawaii has never been a legally annexed State nor has it ever been an incorporated territory of the United States. In November, 1993 Bill Clinton, as POTUS, signed PL-103-150 apologizing to the Nation of Hawaii for the illegal annexation of Hawaii BY the United States of America. Under provision of the British Nationality Act of 1948, by virtue of the fact that Barack Obama,Sr. was a British subject when Jr. was born in Hawaii, Junior was born a British Subject.

  3. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 1:09 AM

    Bellison, Obama,McCain,Rubio,Jindal,Swarzenegger and Cruz are NOT Natural Born Citizens.

  4. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 1:03 AM

    TF Bow, I did not say that I was an Attorney. I said that I have a Law degree. Which I do. The State of California Bar Association accepts several in State Online Law Courses. There are other States such as Wisconsin that accepts California Law Courses. Brick and Mortar schools accredited by the ABA are NOT the sole avenue for obtaining a Law degree or education. There are several States that allow single Attorneys to apprentice law students. Given that I have practiced law in the Federal Sector for (40) years, where one does not have to be an Attorney to represent federal employees before Administrative Boards and Judges, I am like Lincoln. Self taught through experience AND whether accredited by the ABA or not, alternatively acceptable legal training of a non-traditional nature. I have gone up against Solicitor General of the US, Kenneth Starr in a case that I took to SCOTUS in the past. Have you?

  5. Mark Bellison   Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:26 PM

    “I could not find one mention of human law mentioned it the above definition of “natural”.”

    No mention of the parents either.

    FWIW, dictionaries from the late 18th and early 19th centuries:

    DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose Works they are found.

    Samuel Johnson, 1768

    NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.

    NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.

    NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death

    NA’TURAL. f. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.

    Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, in miniature [ed. by Joseph Hamilton] …

    By Samuel Johnson 1798

    Native s, one born in any country, offspring.
    Native adj, natural, not artificial, original

    Natural, adj, produced by nature; tender, easy.
    Natural n, a fool, an idiot; native quality.

    A dictionary of the English language: compiled for the use of common schools …

    By Noah Webster 1817

    Native, a. natural, born with one, pertaining to birth
    Native, n. one born, in any place

    Nat’ural, a. produced by nature, baseborn Nat’ural, re. an idiot, fool, native quality.

    Webster’s Dictionary 1828

    NATIVE, a.
    1. Produced by nature; original; born with the being; natural; not acquired; as native genius; native affections; a native talent or disposition; native cheerfulness; native simplicity.
    2. Produced by nature; not factitious or artificial; as native ore; native color.
    3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.
    4. Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves.
    5. Original; that of which any thing is made; as mans native dust.
    6. Born with; congenial.

    NATIVE, n.
    1. One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.
    2. Offspring.

    NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]
    1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.
    2. According to the stated course of things. Poverty and shame are the natural consequences of certain vices.
    3. Not forced; not far fetched; such as is dictated by nature. The gestures of the orator are natural.
    4. According to the life; as a natural representation of the face.
    5. Consonant to nature.
    Fire and warmth go together, and so seem to carry with them as natural an evidence as self-evident truths themselves.
    6. Derived from nature, as opposed to habitual. The love of pleasure is natural ; the love of study is usually habitual or acquired.
    7. Discoverable by reason; not revealed; as natural religion.
    8. Produced or coming in the ordinary course of things, or the progress or animals and vegetables; as a natural death; opposed to violent or premature.
    9. Tender; affectionate by nature.
    10. Unaffected; unassumed; according to truth and reality.
    What can be more natural than the circumstances of the behavior of those women who had lost heir husbands on this fatal day?
    11. Illegitimate; born out of wedlock; as a natural son.
    12. Native; vernacular; as ones natural language.
    13. Derived from the study of the works or nature; as natural knowledge.
    14. A natural note, in music, is that which is according to the usual order of the scale; opposed to flat and sharp notes, which are called artificial.
    Natural history, in its most extensive sense, is the description of whatever is created, or of the whole universe, including the heavens and the earth, and all the productions of the earth. But more generally, natural history is limited to a description of the earth and its productions, including zoology, botany, geology, mineralogy, meteorology, & c.

    A Dictionary of the English Language

    By Samuel Johnson, John Walker, Robert S. Jameson 1828

    NATIVE, (na’-tiv) a. Produced by nature ; not artificial; natural; such as is according to nature; original; conferred by birth ; pertaining to the time or place of birth ; that which gave being ; born with.

    NATIVE, (na’-tiv) n. i. One born in any place; original inhabitant; offspring.

    NATURAL, (nat’-u-ral) a. Produced or effected by nature; illegitimate, not legal ; bestowed by nature ; not acquired ; not forced ; not farfetched ; dictated by nature ; following the stated course of things ; consonant to natural notions ; tender; affectionate by nature ; unaffected ; according to truth and reality : opposed to violent, as, a natural death.

  6. T.F. BOW   Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM

    Three-Pound Sledge is, of course, free to believe anything, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already explained that terms in the U.S. Constitution are to be interpreted using British Common Law. And, by doing so, every judge who has considered the eligibility issue has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    (And, as an aside, the United States does not exist in nature; it too requires human law to define its boundaries.)

    Three-Pound Sledge may be confused as to where Obama was born, but the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly said he was born there.

  7. Three-Pound Sledge   Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:34 AM

    All individuals that derive their citizenship through Congress’ Naturalization Acts, 1795 and subsequent or Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are statutory U.S. citizens. (3-1/4 Lb amended statement)

    From Mark Bellilaugh: “Obama, Rubin, Jindal and Haley did not derive their citizenship from Congressional acts.”

    Nor have the above individuals (add Cruz, too) derived natural born Citizenship from any source. Rubio, Jindal, and Haley have twisted and contorted the 14th Amendment as illegitimate anchor babies – just plain-vanilla U.S. citizens.

    To wit: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

    I found no mention of “natural born Citizen” in the 14th Amendment.

    Cruz is just an undocumented alien with no verifiable U.S. ‘citizenship’ documentation due to his birth in Canada. i.e., no paper trail.

    Obama is another undocumented alien with zero verifiable background documentation. i.e., no paper trail. No one knows where he was born.

    Dictionary assistance:
    natural
    adjective
    1 a natural occurrence: normal, ordinary, everyday, usual, regular, common, commonplace, typical, routine, standard, established, customary, accustomed, habitual. ANTONYMS abnormal, exceptional.
    2 natural produce: unprocessed, organic, pure, wholesome, unrefined, pesticide-free, additive-free. ANTONYMS artificial, refined.
    3 Alex is a natural leader: born, naturally gifted, untaught.
    4 his natural instincts: innate, inborn, inherent, native, instinctive, intuitive; hereditary, inherited, inbred, congenital, connate. ANTONYMS acquired.
    5 she seemed very natural: unaffected, spontaneous, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, genuine, open, artless, guileless, ingenuous, unpretentious, without airs. ANTONYMS self-conscious, false, affected.
    6 it was quite natural to think that: reasonable, logical, understandable, (only) to be expected, predictable. ANTONYMS unreasonable.

    I could not find one mention of human law mentioned it the above definition of “natural”.

  8. Mark Bellison   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:41 PM

    “All individuals that derive their citizenship through Congress’ Naturalization Acts, 1795 and subsequent, are statutory U.S. citizens.”

    Obama, Rubin, Jindal and Haley did not derive their citizenship from Congressional acts.

  9. T.F. BOW   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:10 PM

    Three-Pound Sledge is, of course, free to believe anything, but every judge who has considered the eligibility issue ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient confer natural-born citizenship. In the United States, judges explain and interpret what the U.S. Constitution means, which is why looking to a statute for a definition would be a bizarre wild-goose chase. No law or senate resolution has made anyone a natural-born citizen; only the U.S. Constitution can do that.

    And Three-Pound Sledge is free to believe that Obama could and will be tried for treason, but there is no indication that will ever happen.

  10. T.F. BOW   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:20 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but it is uncontroverted that every judge who has considered the eligibility issue has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. Laity is free to believe whatever he desires about the correctness of those rulings, but his beliefs are not the law, whereas the judges’ rulings are the law. There is a world of difference between what Laity believes the law should be and what the law actually is.

    The American Justice Foundation, even if run by an attorney, is not accredited by the Florida Bar, the ABA, or any other institution — it is, in fact unaccredited. It (really, the one person running it) can call the “degrees” anything, impose whatever “requirements,” etc., because they have no real-world application; the diplomas aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. An AJF “degree” confers literally no benefit; for example, most states (including Florida, New York, and Illinois) require studying at an ABA school to become a lawyer.

    And hopefully Laity isn’t comparing himself to Lincoln.

  11. Three-Pound Sledge   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:34 PM

    T.F. Bow:

    Find a U.S. statute that explicitly cites the term “natural born Citizen” in the law’s narrative. Good luck if you can find one. But I bet you can find many U.S. laws with the word of “citizen” without any adjective modifiers.

    Summary: Only persons born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents (one male, one female) are natural born U.S. Citizens. All other combinations of the three requirements (1. U.S. soil, 2. father a U.S. citizen, 3. mother a U.S. citizen) are statutory U.S. citizens.

    No U.S. law or Senate Resolution can make anyone a natural born Citizen. It is accomplished through a natural act.

    The Founding Fathers realized the error of their entry of “natural born citizen” in the Naturalization Act of 1790 by deleting “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1795. All individuals that derive their citizenship through Congress’ Naturalization Acts, 1795 and subsequent, are statutory U.S. citizens.

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a treason trial in-waiting – by the right person not being blackmailed and with an iron-clad physical protection.

    Due to the provisions of the First Amendment and the July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence, T.J. Bow is free to believe anything he/she wants to.

  12. Robert Laity   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08 PM

    TF Bow, The American Justice Foundation offers an online course in the law taught by a member of the Florida Bar and the American Bar Association. The course takes two years to complete and requires written exams and a final exam with a passing grade of 90% required for conference of an honorary Juris Doctor Degree signed by the Attorney attesting to the graduate’s certain perspicacity in the law. It is granted honoris causis post examen. Honorary AFTER EXAM as opposed to giving the degree to someone w/o training. It matters not how one obtains knowledge. Abraham Lincoln was a prominent Attorney who was SELF TAUGHT.

  13. Robert Laity   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:58 PM

    Response to T.F. Bow’s comment to Jeffrey Harrison, YOU certainly do NOT know what you are talking about. You want SO BAD to win this argument but you never will. I have researched the issue for (9) years. You might say that I have become a subject matter expert on the issue. Judges who rule that a person is an NBC, when that person was not born in the US to Parents who are both US Citizens themselves, are Malfeasant.

  14. T.F. B0W   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 1:07 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but there is no factual or legal basis to arrest Obama.

    Robert Laity is also free to believe I conflated citizenship and natural-born citizenship, or consider them tantamount. I’ve already explained the differences (citizenship can be acquired later in life by foreigners; natural-born citizenship cannot). The only difference between the two is that citizens cannot be elected to the presidency or vice presidency. I hope that is sufficiently clear for Laity.

    Laity is also free believe that Minor said natural-born citizenship requires birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. No judge, however, who ruled on eligibility case agrees with Laity’s beliefs; instead, they all ruled birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. Laity is, of course, free to disagree with all of those judges, but Laity’s beliefs are not the law, whereas the rulings of the judges are the law.

    It is interesting that Robert Laity claims his degrees are all from accredited institutions of higher learning. Yet the American Justice Foundation isn’t accredited at all; it is just a web site.

  15. T.F. B0W   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 2:52 AM

    Jeffrey Harrison is, of course free to believe whatever he desires. He, for example, is free to believe that he has a special insight into what the Framers meant by “natural-born citizen.”

    The judges who have considered the issue, however, all ruled in real courts in real cases that birth in United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizen.

  16. Robert Laity   Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:15 AM

    Bow, I read Wydra’s piece. You keep conflating the term Citizen with Natural Born Citizen. They are not interchangeable terms nor are they tantamount. Lynch predated Minor which was opined in 1874 and which defined what an NBC is once and for all. Being “considered” an NBC is not the same as being one. In 1795 Congress repealed a 1790 provision of the Naturalization Act which “Considered” persons born to US parents overseas as NBCs. That was unconstitutional and was changed to considered as citizens. BTW, the legal opinions of Secretaries of State do not affect SCOTUS precedents in any way.

  17. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:40 PM

    Bow, You seem quite obtuse. It is the Constitution that requires a President to be a Natural Born Citizen. The US Supreme Court rulings defined what a Natural Born Citizen is. John Jay did not want the Presidency to devolve upon someone who was just a Citizen. He wanted it to devolve unto a citizen who enjoyed a higher level of citizenship., a “Natural Born Citizen”. This is the highest level that anyone can be. One born in the US to Parents who were themselves both US Citizens are 100% Americans with 100% US Jus Sanquinis and US Jus soli. Any Judge that claims that mere birth in the US is sufficient to be an NBC is flouting the legally established definition in Minor v Happersett. The Judges in Minor were “real judges” as was John Jay. I did not say that I help veteran process claims or file for their service connection benefits. I said that I REPRESENT them before Administrative Judges of the EEOC, MSPB, FLRA etc. I am quite perspicacious in the law after 40 years. My degrees are from established and fully accredited institutions of higher learning.I have a Hospital Corpsman certificate from the US Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery., I am a legal assistant and legal investigator, Intn’l Correspondence Schools in Scranton, Pa. A private investigator, Ashworth College, Atlanta Georgia. I have a liberal Arts and social science degree from Erie County Community College, Buffalo State Teachers College, A B.S. Degree in Psychology with a Biology minor is from the University of the State of NY in Albany (Now known as Excelsior College). I graduated in the University of NY at Buffalo, Class of 1984. I have a Juris Doctor degree from the American Justice Foundation with a 4.0 score on the exams. I have spent many years studying. My degrees are neither “Unspecified” OR “Unaccredited”.

  18. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 10:59 PM

    Bow, I am the one who proffered Wydra’s work. She is correct on some points but incorrect on others. Being born in the US to US Citizen Parents makes a person an NBC. NBCs are the ONLY Citizens that can be President or Vice-President. No other type of Citizen can be President or VP. You continue to ignorantly claim that “There is no law…grants any special right to” Natural Born Citizens. On the contrary NBCs are the ONLY people who are eligible to BE President. The SCOTUS precedents on the subject ARE law. The opinion of the nine Justices was UNANIMOUS in Minor.

  19. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 10:49 PM

    Jeffrey Harrison, The Obama case is before the proper venue which is D.C. It has been in that venue for years. The USDC, US Attorney, DC Police,FBI and Secret Service have ALL been nonfeasant. They have had formal complaints filed with them against Obama for at least the last five years. Being a usurper, Obama could not properly undergo the Impeachment Protocol. He was never in the office of the Presidency. Obama could have been arrested on a simple warrant and tried in the USDC in DC. He still can be.

  20. Jeffrey Harrison   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 7:25 PM

    Being free to believe whatever I want, I can’t believe after some 241 years as a country, we as American Citizens for the most part have a grossly incorrect understanding and conception of what the founding fathers meant by NBC.

    It seems to me Judges are fabricating law from the bench and avoiding making judgements from the bench that are based on the Constitution. Take for instance Roberts’ stance that the Health Care Bill was a tax. Now Congress can take advantage of that concept and “kill the Health Care bill”. How ironic that they implanted a “kill switch” in their legislation.

    And as Judge Moore has stated, if Obama’s Fraud was brought before the proper venue, it would raise serious concerns…

    Obama and those behind him to be an Usurper are given great credit for their deception and ruse. While they did run out the clock for impeachment, they did not run the clock out for Treason. Therefore, except for a natural or untimely death, this is one snare waiting to condemn. In other words, the fat lady is yet to sing.

  21. T.F. B0W   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 4:29 PM

    Robert Laity is correct that birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is a very simple concept. What Laity perhaps doesn’t understand is that particular circumstance carries no special legal significance.

    There is no law, and no judge’s ruling, that grants any special right to only that subset of people. On the contrary, every judge who considered the eligibility issue ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    Elizabeth Wydra’s essay is consistent with that position; perhaps Laity ought to read it.

  22. T.F. B0W   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:53 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but no judge has read The Venus, Shanks, Minor, or Wong Kim Ark as to say that birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are required for natural-born citizenship. Nor did John Jay ever say that. And the judges who have considered the eligibility issue have all concluded that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    And Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe that every judge is wrong, and he is right. Just as other people are free to believe real judges in real courts in real case have a better understanding of the law, and the authority to explain what the law actually is.

    Laity’s helping veterans process their claims is nice, but that doesn’t seem like particularly relevant experience; neither do degrees private investigation, psychology, anatomy, and physiology. Laity may be impressed that some unspecified, unaccredited web site awarded him some sort of online degree, but is anyone else?

    Laity should read Wydra’s article. For example: “The case of Lynch v. Clarke, cited in the 1866 debates, stated that ‘children born here are citizens without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.’ The court held that ‘every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.’ Ten years after the Lynch case, the then-Secretary of State Marcy wrote in a letter opinion that ‘every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth.'” Nowhere does Wydra say birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are required for natural-born citizenship, and Wydra approvingly cites a case (and a Secretary of State) saying birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

  23. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:48 PM

    Bellison, We aren’t talking about the Parent’s “Particular ancestry” here. I did not say that I agree totally with Wydra. Fact is that an NBC MUST not only be born in the US. His/her parents must be US Citizens themselves. Their “particular ancestry” I agree, is of no import as long as the parents are US Citizens when their child is born IN the US. The parents need not have been NBCs themselves. They need only to be either NBC OR Naturalized US Citizens themselves. Their “particular ancestry” (such as if they are Polish descent or Russian descent or even Iranian descent) is of no import AS LONG as at the time of birth of their child in the US BOTH parents were US Citizens. It is a VERY simple concept. I do not understand why so many people have trouble with understanding it.

  24. Mark Bellison   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:51 AM

    “Get a copy of Birthright Citizenship by Elizabeth Wydra, (2009)”

    You sure you want Mr. Bow to do that?

    “The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution that reflects the notion that citizenship can accrue from the circumstances of one’s birth: Article II of the Constitution, provides that any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements is eligible to become President. Just as the Citizenship Clause sets forth birth on U.S soil as the condition for citizenship—not race or bloodline—Article II specifies that the relevant qualification for the presidency of the United States is birth-conferred citizenship, not any particular ancestry.” Elizabeth Wydra, (2009) Birthright Citizenship

    https://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf

  25. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:45 AM

    TF Bow, Get a copy of Birthright Citizenship by Elizabeth Wydra, (2009). Look Tin Sing was ruled to be a 14th Amendment “CItizen” . That was the extent of Sing’s citizenship status. No one who is not born in the United States to Parents who are not both US Citizens themselves is an NBC. It is not Minor that “requires” one to be a NBC lest they are disqualified from being President. However, it was Minor and related cases (Venus.,Shanks.,WKA) that defined just what an NBC IS. One born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. As I previously cited, John Jay, our nation’s first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court understood that an NBC was one born in a country of citizen parents. He is the “real Judge” that suggested that it be made a mandatory criteria for being President. I stand by my previous assertion. EVERY Judge who rules that “Birth in the US is sufficient to CONFER [emphasis added] Natural Born Citizenship is wrong”. First of all, Natural Born Citizenship cannot BE “Confer[red]” on anyone. One must be born under those circumstances which makes a person an NBC. NBCs need not EVER rely on being a citizen merely by statutory provision. The circumstances of being born in the US to citizen parents makes an American NBC immutably a 100% American. NO OTHER type of citizen can be or is a 100% American. Like Virginia Minor, if one’s parents are both American citizens and you were born in the US then you are an NBC. Any other combination does not suffice. As for my qualifications to instruct on the law, I have forty years of experience in the legal profession representing federal employees as a Federal Statutory Appeals Specialist, I hold degrees in Legal Assistant, Private Investigation, Psychology, Anatomy and Physiology and I have a Juris Doctorate [h.c.p.e.]. I believe that I am more then qualified to discuss this issue.

  26. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 6:04 AM

    Mark Bellison, My question was rhetorical. I know what the difference between a standard “citizen” and a “natural born” citizen is. Both are citizens. Those who are not NBCs cannot be President.

  27. T.F. BOW   Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but the only person who thinks Look Tin Sing wasn’t a natural-born citizen … is Robert Laity.

    Justice Field didn’t “vacate” Minor; Field didn’t even cite Minor. Minor does still stand — just not for what Laity believes it stands for. As no judge who has ruled on the meaning of natural-born citizenship has ever read Minor to require birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

    It continues to be unsurprising that Laity thinks every judge who has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship is wrong. It should also be unsurprisingly to Laity that most people prefer to receive the law from actual lawgivers (that is, real judges), and not internet commenters or losing litigants.

    There is a no dispute that all natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens. The only difference between citizens and natural-born citizens is that a person can become a citizen later in life, that is, a foreigner can naturalize and become a citizen (but not a natural-born citizen).

  28. Mark Bellison   Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:56 PM

    I’m simply answering your original question. You are the one who appears to be drawing some imaginary boundary between natural born citizens and citizens.

    “Tell me what the difference between the two is or alternatively why, if there is no difference between the two terms, did Congress see fit to qualify the term “Citizen” in requiring a President to be a “Natural Born” Citizen?”

    Is a natural born citizen a citizen of the United States?

    Of course they are.

    Is a naturalized citizen a citizen of the United States?

    Of course they are.

    Is there a third type of citizen?

    Not that has ever been defined by either Congress or the Courts.

    So by choosing to limit the presidency to natural born citizens, the Framers were excluding naturalized citizens. Of course with the exception of naturalized citizens who became citizens before the adoption of the Constitution.

  29. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:25 AM

    You are engaging in Circular thinking. All NBCs are citizens but all citizens are not NBCs. The question is can a naturalized citizen be President. The answer is NO. Of course an NBC can be a Senator or a Congressman because the criteria for being so is “Citizen”. ALL NBCs are citizens. However, the criteria for President is of the higher standard, one MUST BE a “Natural Born” Citizen. That’s one born IN the US of parents who are both US Citizens themselves. All citizens are NOT NBCs. You won’t win this argument.

  30. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:18 AM

    TF Bow, ONE Justice can not vacate Supreme Court Precedents. Minor still stands. Sing was never a “Natural Born Citizen”. The single Justice was incorrect in calling him one.

  31. Mark Bellison   Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 1:19 PM

    The easiest way to answer your questions is by asking the following:

    Can a natural born citizen be a member of either the House or the Senate?

    Can a naturalized citizen be a member of either the House or the Senate?

    The answer to both questions is obviously – yes.

    One of the Constitutional requirements to be a member of Congress is that you must be a “Citizen of the United States” (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 and Art. 1, Sec 3, Cl. 3).

    Logically than the class – Citizen of the United States – is made up of two subclasses – natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

    If natural born citizens were not part of the class – Citizens of the United States than they would not be eligible to be members of Congress.

  32. T.F. BOW   Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 12:16 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but Look Tin Sing was described as a natural-born citizen by a then-sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice — a real judge in a real court deciding a real case. In a nation of laws, that settles the matter.

    As for the difference between “citizen” and “natural-born citizen,” citizenship can be gained later in life, that is, a foreigner can naturalize and become a citizen (but not a natural-born citizen).

  33. Robert Laity   Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 12:33 AM

    I ask the readers, pray tell, what their “belief” is regarding what the term “Natural Born Citizen” means as opposed to “Citizen”. Compare the two terms. Tell me what the difference between the two is or alternatively why, if there is no difference between the two terms, did Congress see fit to qualify the term “Citizen” in requiring a President to be a “Natural Born” Citizen? I already know the answer. Do you?

  34. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 11:40 PM

    Tom Arnold, You’re mistaken.

  35. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 11:37 PM

    TF Bow is “of course free to believe whatever he /she wants” but the fact is that look tin sing was not a Natural Born Citizen despite of having been referred to as one. ONLY those born in the Country of US citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens.

  36. T.F. BOW   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM

    Robert Laity (and Tom Arnold) are, of course, free to believe whatever they desire, but criticizing the administration isn’t interfering with it (in any legal sense of the word); such criticism isn’t treason, and is protected by the First Amendment.

  37. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:06 PM

    Here is V.C. Sandford’s ruling in Lynch v. Clarke:

    “In conclusion, I entertain no doubt that but that Julia Lynch was a citizen of the United States when Thomas Lynch died.”

    He does not conclude she is a natural born citizen only that she is a citizen, yet Justice Field says that Sandford found Julia Lynch to be a natural born citizen.

    Why did Justice Field use the term natural born citizen to describe V.C. Sandford’s ruling when Sanford never says that?

    Why does Justice Field cite Lynch v Clark at all?

  38. Tom Arnold   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:47 PM

    Unless I’m mistaken, Robert Laity, that (your above 11-20-17 comment at 2:58 AM) amounts to TREASON! Tom Arnold.

  39. T.F. BOW   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:41 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but the U.S. Supreme Court approvingly cited Lynch v. Clark in Wong Kim Ark. And the Ankeny court cited Wong Kim Ark when it concluded that Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    And one of Wong Kim Ark’s rulings was that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted in light of English common law.

    The Minor court did state in dicta that there were some doubts as to the natural-born citizenship of those not born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. Those doubts were later removed in Wong Kim Ark, as it was repeatedly cited by the judges who ruled that Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    (And, more generally, of course state courts can interpret the U.S. Constitution, provided those interpretations don’t run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings. And none of the rulings on Obama’s eligibility did so.)

  40. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:30 PM

    Bellison, The case was a NY State Chancery Court case. State courts have no authority to determine who or who is not an NBC. Indiana tried the same scam in Ankeny. English Common law does not apply in the US after we severed ALL TIES to it in 1776. Lynch was nothing more than a naturalized US Citizen. Not being born here of two citizen parents Lynch could be nothing more. Sandford may have had “no doubt” but in Minor v Happersett the ENTIRE COURT (9-0) agreed that “there ARE DOUBTS” whether persons born here without reference to the parents status are “Citizens” and that there was NO doubt that persons born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves ARE NBCs. It is so simple and clear. Anyone that is NOT born in the US to citizen parents are NOT NBCs. Try to argue some more, until you are BLUE in the face. YOU lose.

  41. T.F. BOW   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he wants, but Minor is no longer good law.

    No judge — including the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court — has ever read Minor to say that birth in the United States to two U.S. citizens is required for natural-born citizenship.

    Minor’s actual holding — that there’s no constitutional right to vote — was arguably silently overruled in the 1960s. And of course the 19th Amendment prohibited laws against women voting.

  42. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 12:53 PM

    “The quote you cited is actually from Lynch v Clarke”

    No, you are wrong. These are Justice Field’s words used to describe Vice-Chancellor Sandford’s decision in the Lynch case. Justice Field, who was on the Court for the Minor decision, could have just said that Sandford ruled Lynch a citizen but Justice Field deliberately chose to use the term natural-born citizen. There is only one logical conclusion. Justice Field believed that anyone born in the country “whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen”.

    “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen;“

  43. Robert Laity   Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 11:13 AM

    Bellison, Minor v Happersett is still “Good Law”. Minor’s definition of what an NBC is was UNANIMOUS. An NBC is one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. The quote you cited is actually from Lynch v Clarke and Lynch from 1844 which PRE-Dated the unanimous decision in Minor, of what an NBC is by thirty years. Sing was ruled to he a “Citizen” of the US under the 14th Amendment. He was not ruled to be an NBC and was NOT an NBC. The Lynch decision that you quoted was at the Circuit Court level. SCOTUS opinions control.

  44. Mark Bellison   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 5:32 PM

    The fact that Justice Field in citing Lynch v. Clarke and purposely using the phrase natural-born citizen can only mean that between 1875 and 1884 he changed his mind on the meaning of the term or the Minor decision never defined it.

    In deciding the case of Wong Kim Ark, District Judge Morrow cites verbatim this same passage from Long Tin Sing.

    http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/0071.f1.0382.pdf

  45. T.F. BOW   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM

    Mark Bellison is accurately quoting the decision of In Re Look Tin Sing, which was decided in 1884; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Field “rode the circuit” and wrote the decision. Its legal citation is 21 F. 905, which means the case starts on page 905 of volume 21 of the Federal Reporter (the case law reporter for the federal courts).

  46. Mark Bellison   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:05 PM

    Page 909 in the paragraph that starts “Independently”. Justice Field begins a discussion of the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke. Justice Field did not quote directly from Vice-Chancellor Sandford’s ruling but simply described it. He deliberately used the term natural-born when he could have simply said citizen.

  47. T.F. BOW   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 1:03 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s statements about Minor’s citizenship were dicta because they were not essential to the actual holding of the case (that there’s no constitutional right to vote).

    And Laity is still confused about the difference between “Minor is a natural-born citizen because she was born in the United States to two U.S. citizens” (which is what the U.S. Supreme Court actually said) and “only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens (which the U.S. Supreme Court has never said, nor is that statement in the U.S. Constitution).

    It is unsurprising that Laity believes every judge that ruled Obama was eligible is wrong. But losing litigants rarely agree with the judges who rule against them. As the United States is a nation of laws, we look to the rulings from the authorized lawgivers as to what the law actually is. And not the disgruntled losing litigants.

    In Laity’s case, he actually sued and lost in New York over Obama. The New York courts said they lacked jurisdiction because they lacked the power to grant Laity any relief. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. The notion that a certiorari denial mean the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with every fanciful notion asserted by every losing litigant shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the certiorari process (and, if true, would be an incredible burden on the U.S. Supreme Court to correct so many errors).

    Laity’s similar suit against Cruz was also dismissed, and the appellate court affirmed that dismissal. It will be unsurprising when the New York Court of Appeals (and the U.S. Supreme Court) do not further hear this case.

    Laity claims there are two magistrates advising him, but he curiously does not provide any evidence of this assertion (or even their names). And “logic” dictates that they might have pointed Laity toward D.C. simply in an effort to get him out of their offices, and not because they agreed with him.

    Laity may believe that he’s keeping Obama’s eligibility “in the spotlight” (whatever that means), but there’s no indication that any notable person cares. For example, the current president last year stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, and then hasn’t said another word on the matter.

    Vattel never wrote the words “natural-born citizen.” Looking at a translation of his work that occurred after the U.S. Constitution was ratified (and after Vattel’s death) does not provide any insight to the Framers’ intent.

  48. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM

    Are those words in the “Federal Reporter,” pages 904 and 905, to which the link leads, or do they appear elsewhere? I see a discussion of “citizenship” as it relates to the 14th Amendment but no mention of the term “natural born Citizen.”

  49. Mark Bellison   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM

    “The fact remains that a person born in a country to citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen and those who were NOT born in a country to citizen parents are NOT NBCs. Period.”

    And yet Justice Stephen Field who was on the Court when it ruled in Minor v. Happersett, ruled in the 1884 in re Look Tin Sing that the children of aliens born in U.S. were NBC.

    “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3556433;view=2up;seq=932;skin=mobile

  50. Robert Laity   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 6:19 AM

    Mark Bellison,

    Greschack used (85) pages to explain a simple concept. I don’t have to have any long winded explanation of what an NBC is. I have a US Supreme Court Precedent which unanimously clarified the definition as “One born in the United States to Parents who are both U.S. citizens themselves”.

    I quote the original French in my book. French was the language of diplomacy in the 18th century. Benjamin Franklin brought the French version to America when he was ambassador TO France. You say that my statement is “not true” but it is true.

    I went to a school taught by French Canadians. I read the original French version. The fact remains that a person born in a country to citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen and those who were NOT born in a country to citizen parents are NOT NBCs. Period.

    A “Naturelle” is a Natural and an “Indigene” is an indiginous person. The phrase in question, refers to both Naturals and Indigenous people as those born in a country of parents who are citizens, as OPPOSED TO naturalized people who are only citizens because of a statutory bestowing of citizenship by Congress.

    Those born in a country to citizen parents need not go through naturalization because the are 100% citizens of said country. They are homegrown as opposed to being allochthonous or of foreign origin.

  51. Robert Laity   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 5:16 AM

    T.F. Bow, I am doing something. I am keeping the charges against Obama in the spotlight. My “belief” was shared by the First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay. In addition I have two current U.S. District Court Magistrate Judges who have collaborated with me in having directed me on how to proceed in DC with my Charges after having appeared before them to swear out my Complaint against Obama. It can be logically assumed that they are in agreement with me otherwise they would have not gone as far as pointing me in the proper direction to pursue my charges against Obama.

  52. Robert Laity   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:51 AM

    Stephan Hiller, I am doing my part. As for Hell freezing over. There is a town in Michigan where it frequently freezes over in the winter., HELL, Michigan. Hell, Michigan has frozen over many times. Hard work and hope are key to any worthy pursuit.

  53. Robert Laity   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:45 AM

    T.J. Bow, It was NOT “in dicta” that the court in Minor recognized Minor as a Natural Born Citizen having been born in the U.S. to parents who were both citizens themselves. When you state “Nowhere did it say… was necessary”. Necessary for what? Your statement stopped cold. If you are referring to being “necessary” to becoming President. I agree. The court did not address that. The U.S. Constitution says that in Art. II. One MUST be an NBC. The Court defined just what an NBC is. Shanks, Dupont, Minor and Ark all support the fact that an NBC IS one born in a country to parents who are both citizens. In Minor, the court said that “There is Doubt as to the other[s]” types of citizen. Where there is doubt one MUST apply the definition that is doubtless. NINE Justices in Minor said that an NBC was one born in the US to parents who were both US Citizens themselves. The Judges that ruled that Obama was an NBC were ALL wrong. Each and every one of them. Where did you get the idea that the lower NY State Courts lacked jurisdiction? If a higher court declines to review a case as SCOTUS did in my case, the end result is that the previous cases were undisturbed. They could have, the opportunity was before them. Their declension acted to leave the previous (4) precedents lntact. As for my case at the NY State Court of Appeals against Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and the State of NY, NO. The Court has not dismissed the case. In fact they denied motion by the State to do so. The case is still pending.

  54. Robert Laity   Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM

    The answer to the question were the founders “sovereign citizens” is no. Sovereign citizen movement members claim that they are above the law, do not have to obey laws that they feel are inappropriate and use violent means to get their way. The founders respected the law,never said that they were above the law and did not engage in violence outside of the just war between England and the States, Besides, before the Declaration of Independence they were “subjects” of the “sovereign” King George III.

  55. Mark Bellison   Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:19 PM

    “In the original French the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” is written “Les naturelles, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont, nes dans le pays de Parents Citoyens”. The English translation is “The Natural born are those born in a country to parents who are both citizens”.

    Actually this is not true. The 1797 English edition translated it as “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” But as this came 10 years after the Constitution was written it could not have influenced the framers. Also it is an imprecise translation as it translate “indigenes” as “natural-born citizens” and “naturelles” as “natives”. Also the French word for citizens, Citoyens, appears only once in the sentence not twice as in the English translation.

    People like to say the the Founders read the French version would have translated it as natural born and maybe they would have but the early English translations (1760 and 1787) also translate the phrase as “natives, or indigenes” again translating “naturelles” as “natives”.

    John Greschak has reviewed this issue and presents a number of original source documents.

    http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/picture?PictId=%7BED7DC1F9-E939-4B3E-8C59-ACBFB1B335E5%7D&size=ORIG

  56. T.F. BOW   Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:56 PM

    To answer Stephen Hiller’s questions: No, there’s no indication that anything will ever be done.

    No judge shares Laity’s belief regarding the meaning of natural-born citizen. In any event, Obama is no longer in office and is now ineligible (under the 22nd Amendment).

    The state of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly stated that Obama was born there (and that Obama, Sr. and Dunham were his parents). Hawaii’s birth certificate is acceptable proof for any governmental agency; that Laity does not accept it is his concern alone.

    As for Arpaio’s reports, there is no indication that he will ever publicly release those reports. And there is no indication that Arpaio has provided the reports to anyone, other than Arpaio’s vague claim that he provided the reports to the previous session of Congress.

  57. Stephen Hiller   Monday, November 20, 2017 at 2:39 PM

    Will anything ever be done? Or like the “earth shaking revelations to be released soon” will we have to wait for hell to freeze over?

  58. T.F. BOW   Monday, November 20, 2017 at 1:17 PM

    Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in dicta, said that Minor was a natural-born citizen because she was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. Nowhere did it say that birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents was necessary.

    And the Shanks and Venus cases couldn’t have reaffirmed Minor since they were both decided well before Minor. (They also don’t say what Laity thinks they say.)

    And the judges who considered Obama’s eligibility read Wong Kim Ark, applied it, and ruled (in real cases in real courts) that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has only silently denied certiorari to Laity’s previous attempt to litigate the issue, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It reaffirmed nothing about Laity’s beliefs.

    But speaking of Laity’s litigation, has the New York Court of Appeal dismissed Laity’s attempt to disqualify Cruz yet?

  59. Robert Laity   Monday, November 20, 2017 at 2:58 AM

    Obama still walks around freely while he continues to interfere with President Trump’s bona-fide duties as President. The government is paying Secret Service personnel to protect him. Obama laughs at all of this. He most likely thinks that he pulled it off, the most heinous scam of the Century, the usurpation of the Presidency,during wartime

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.