by Robert Laity, ©2020

(Aug. 14, 2020) — [Editor’s Note:  The following letter was sent to Attorney General William Barr on Thursday, August 13, 2020 by citizen activist Robert Laity.  It has been reproduced from its Word format with the exception of our removal of the author’s personal information.]

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
via Brian A. Benczkowski
DOJ Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
20530-0001                                                                                                                             August 13, 2020

Re:  Information in the nature of a Quo Warranto at common law

Dear U.S. Attorney General Barr,

This letter constitutes a Petition to the United States government for redress of grievances under the provision of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It also requests that the Department of Justice seek a Writ of Quo Warranto against Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris, whom it is alleged by me is not an Article II “Natural Born Citizen of the United States and therefore is constitutionally barred from becoming President and/or Vice-President of the United States.

In the name of the government, I seek a court order requiring her to show cause as to her eligibility and right to hold the office of Vice-President and/or President of the United States under Article II, Sec. 1,Clause 5:

No person except a natural born citizen…shall  be
Eligible for the office of President”

-and under’

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of vice-president
of the United States.”


Your office was previously apprised of my concerns regarding a pattern of illegal usurpations and attempts at usurpation of our presidency which started with Barack Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency, by fraud, in 2008.

I have previously contacted each and every U.S. Attorney since then, including you, regarding this matter. I went so far as to notify Eric Holder that Obama was under formalized citizen’s arrest,by me, for treason and espionage during time of war. He is not a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. He fraudulently and illegally entered into the Presidency, during time when this nation was at war.

That constituted the taking of a false oath, criminal impersonation of a public official (DC Code) and treason and espionage against the United States.  This issue and controversy will never be resolved by ignoring it and by acquiescing to a blatant derogation of the Natural Born Citizen mandate requiring Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874) Unanimous.

In the past (12) years alone there have been no less then (8) ineligible candidates running for the Presidency who are not Article II Natural Born Citizens. They are Barack Obama, who actually usurped the Presidency, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Tammy Duckworth, Tulsi Gabbard and now Kamala Harris. None of these people met the legal criteria of being born in the U.S. to parents who were both U.S. Citizens themselves. Current speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is complicit with Obama’s crime by having fraudulently representing that Obama met all constitutional requirements to be President.

Franklin Pierce said in his book “Federal Usurpation”, D. Appleton and Co., ©1908 “Let there be no change by usurpation,for this, may in one


instance be the instrument of good, is the ordinary weapon by which free governments are destroyed”.

Barack Obama usurped the Presidency by fraud as did Chester Arthur before him. John McCain conspired with Barack Obama in 2008 to usurp the Presidency.

It was a bi-partisan subterfuge since neither were Natural Born Citizens of the United States. Obama’s birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery. Chester Arthur’s as well as Obama’s purported father, Barack Obama, were both British Subjects.

For various reasons the other people herein mentioned also do not meet the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen.

“What excuses are offered for these usurpations? Simply that the President though such usurpations were for the welfare of the American people. Good intentions never justify usurpations of law…the constitution was given to us as a guide of our action. It is beyond the ingenuity of man to invent a justification for its violation. The example of a President obeying it’s mandates would contribute a thousandfold more to the general good than ever can come from any supposed benefit in its violation”-Franklin Pierce

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a British Jamaican Father and an Indian (India) Mother. Although Kamala Harris was born in the U.S. she was born to two foreigners from two different nations.  Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to become President or VP.

Her usurpation of the Presidency or Vice-Presidency would be a treasonous crime against “We the People”.

That there is now an obviously undeniable patter of usurpations makes those who continue to look the other way, misprisioners of treason, espionage and felony.


I request that you respond to these concerns with utmost seriousness towards preserving our nation for posterity and that you acknowledge that you have been advised of these national security issues which demand your immediate attention.

Robert C.Laity


Robert C. Laity, Petitioner

CC: Donald J. Trump, President of
the United States of America

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I believe the First Session of Congress ‘re-wrote’ the meaning of “natural born citizen” giving that [title] to children who ‘s parents was both citizens of their home nation whether the child was born in the USA or at sea.

    I’ve never been able to understand why nations give citizenship to children who’s parents were not citizens of said nation giving the children dual-citizenship… which I understand they can “take their pick” to be a citizen of either nation when they reach adulthood.

  2. So a court in Indiana read a Supreme Court case and decided that the Supreme Court case didn’t exactly answer the question, but then the court in Indiana applied the Supreme Court’s logic to answer the question?

    Why is that bad?

    1. You are referring to Ankeny v Governor of Indiana. That case was wrongly decided. That case ignored five SCOTUS precedents that supports the definition of NBC as being One born IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. There is nothing that I could find regarding any appeal of this ruling to the US Supreme Court. The fact that Ankenny is an Indiana State opinion is NOT controlling and does not supersede SCOTUS opinions. Things have changed since the Ankenny case in any event. Obama’s BC has since been proven to be a forgery. That is incontrovertible proof, on its own merit, that Obama did indeed usurp the Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. That makes Obama both a Traitor under 18USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec.2381 and a spy under 10USC, Sec.903 Article 103 -Spies.

        1. I do!! Besides, it’s not controlling. State Court opinions do not supersede 206 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedents. No evidence that it was ever appealed from the State of Indiana Court to SCOTUS.

    1. When a person loses sight of, or refuses to accept, the fact that there are only two types of US citizens: 1.) Natural born Citizens [born in USA to two USA citizen parents] and 2.) Plain-vanilla statutory citizens [through Citizenship and Naturalization laws], you end up being a designer of natural born Citizenship, i.e., find the person, then apply that person’s nativity credentials as a natural born Citizen.

      After designating the natural born Citizenship to the candidate of your choice through your custom design, you then have the freedom and gall to mock, ridicule, and presume a dominating roll in the debate due to a criminal judicial system that was green-lighted by the foisting of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of the USA – Barry HUSSEIN Obama – or whatever his real name is.

    2. The case was docketed in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on September 11, 2020. The short title is Laity v. Harris. The docket number is 1:20-cv-02511-EGS. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Summons issued as to Kamala Devi Harris., U.S. Attorney for D.C. and U.S. Attorney . Entered: 09/11/20.

  3. First, lower courts are not superior to the Supreme Court of the United States. PERIOD!

    Second, the majority opinion of U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark itself reiterated the majority opinion of Minor v. Hapersett that a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States to parents both of whom are citizens of the United States (Vattel’s Laws Of Nations).

    Third, John Bingham, primary author of the 14th Amendment, understood natural born citizen to be a person born in the United States to parents not owing any allegiance to a foreign Sovereign or power. To wit:

    “All other lands, who…become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe,1862

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”. — John Bingham, Congressional Globe,1866

    It is therefore intellectually dishonest for you to conclude therefrom: “Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.”

    “It is wiser to say nothing and let others wonder if you are a fool then to say something and remove all doubt.” — Unknown

    1. “First, lower courts are not superior to the Supreme Court of the United States. PERIOD!”

      can we dispel this notion that the lower courts are overriding the Supreme Court?

      Instead of overruling them, the courts are embracing them. They looked at the arguments about Minor v. Happersett being binding or Wong Kim Ark being binding and came to their own conclusions. These conclusions were based on their understanding of how to read a Supreme Court ruling.

      Here are two examples that clearly show the courts are interpreting Wong Kim Ark as binding.

      Allen v Obama;

      Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 69 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1989) (addressing U.S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.


      Fair v. Obama;

      “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [Wong KimArk], 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.”


      1. “Instead of overruling them, the courts are embracing them.”

        As you wish. Here’s a lower court embracing a Supreme Court ruling.

        Court of Appeals of Indiana
        Steve ANKENY and Bill Kruse, Appellants-Plaintiffs
        GOVERNOR OF the STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

        No. 49A02-0904-CV-353.
        Decided: November 12, 2009

        Footnote 14: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen’ using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

        Can we now agree that lower court cases which determined Obama eligible based on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark are irrelevant? Please?

        1. Not sure what the point is – the Indiana court footnote is saying that it is immaterial that the Wong decision did not use the phrase nbc.

          It appears that the Indiana court agrees with Chief Justice Fuller that Wong Kim Ark was made a nbc by the decision even if they did not use that specific term.

  4. At least two presidents were publicly known to have at least one alien parent, Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. Both served out their terms. The very first candidate for the Republican party was a child of an American mother and a French father. In the case of Arthur there were some rumors that he was born in Canada and not the US. In the case of Barack Obama over 200 cases and appeals concerning where he was born and later his parentage. Not a single case came close to succeeding. In more than a few of the cases the judges took it upon themselves to comment that the “two citizen parent theory” was wrong, that allusions to de Vattel’s writings and citing the dicta in Minor v Happersett were worthless as to the definition of natural born citizen. Here is a sampling of those rulings:

    Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

    Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.“

    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

    Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.

    Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:

    “There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.”

    Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.

    There are others. This issue is well litigated and the answer is clear.

    Albert Einstein is often falsely attributed to have said the following. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” If old Albert was still around he would agree that it is applicable to the two parent citizen nonsense.

    As for Fremont, I have never heard of anyone challenging his eligibility. He lost and is largely forgotten.

    1. I know different. Obama and Arthur were the two “Imposters in the Oval Office” that I talk about in my book by the same name. I am not taking “No” for an answer. I don’t care if I am the ONLY person in the world saying that an NBC is one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. BTW, I am NOT!! I KNOW that I am right and I intend to stand my ground. On this I am UNMOVABLE!!

      1. We came very close to having three “usurpers”.

        In the 1916 election only 5000 votes out of more than one million cast in California kept Republican candidate Charles Evan Hughes from winning the Electoral College and the Presidency.

        It was well known that Hughes’ father was not a US citizen at the time Hughes was born.

  5. Randy Disher, It is NOT racist to defend the constitution. It appears to be a tactic of the Democrats to purposely proffer disqualified “people of color” just so that they CAN shout “Racism” if anyone dare confront them. That isn’t going to work with me. I spent almost (50) years of my life filing discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I have represented clients of all races. I am NOT a racist. One’s race is NOT a license to break the law nor is it a pass to be free from any criticism. I have confronted phony candidates from BOTH parties over the last (12) years. As much as I like President Trump I have had to tell him that only Tiffany Trump is eligible to become President in the future. She is an NBC and will be eligible to run in 2028. There have been more than a half-dozen attempted usurpations just since 2008. That has got to STOP right NOW!! The alternative is further erosion of the integrity of OUR sovereign Presidency by foreigners with ill intent and subterfuge in their treasonous hearts.

    1. Dr. Laity is absolutely right: President Trump’s children with Ivana, a foreigner, are NOT eligible either. Constitutionalists must make this clear to everyone right way. If we wait until the last minute, they will try to ram through another non-NBC! Sorry Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, but the rules are for everyone. The Post and Email is a breathe of fresh air for telling it like it is without fear or favor! It’s hard to tell President Trump his children are ineligible, they must be thinking of a dynasty, but as Post and Email readers know, that just cannot happen. It would be great to have some dedicated articles here to share on Facebook to let people know that President Trump’s children aren’t eligible so Patriots aren’t misled.

  6. Email sent to White House and DOJ today:


    SETTING LIMITS 2020 -Part 8 APPLY “natural born Citizen” (nbC) CLAUSE AS ITS AUTHORS INTENDED

    Attorney-criminals Obama II and Kamala Harris and Ted Cruz are excluded from being a “natural born Citizen” in the eyes of Nature, Founding Fathers and adult U.S. citizens.

    Remove all state-licensed attorneys from vetting any President or VP because (1) they do not agree unanimously on nbC meaning, (2) they are biased, and trained, to argue either-way for a pre-desired conclusion, (3) their own state licensing boards do not always dis-bar them for openly conning the lay public and (4) the U.S. Constitution was prepared mostly by lay people for other lay people to simply read and follow without attorney con-fusion.

    So many problems festering in our society today are due to unaccounted attorney-criminal involvement and their equation: LAWFARE = LAWFEAR

    EYES of NATURE: all five senses to the brain over SEVERAL YEARS OF SENSITIZING yield an adult brain frame of mind-thinking that is “America First”, ideally, with zero ingrained foreign allegiances.

    EYES of FOUNDING FATHERS: The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land; either follow the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” clause of 1787, or amend it. Most discussions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 centered around the powers of a “president”, with all quite fearful of any future president having ingrained/unbridled foreign sympathies working to humiliate their life’s work and ending their Constitutional Republic.

    EYES of U.S. CITIZENS: Most voting adults today accept that a president must be born in USA (good-bye “President Cruz”) and a portion of this voting population understand, and demand, this: BOTH SENSITIZING PARENTS OF PRESIDENTS and VPs must be void of FOREIGN citizenships and allegiances.

    Refer to this free website for all things OBAMA-KAMALA-nbC-FRAUD et al: https://www.thepostemail.com/


  7. I have posted this on several sites already. It’s a long read, but I tried to be as concise as possible. First off, Kamala Harris is not eligible.

    Like Obama and Ted Cruz, the mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been. Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.

    I know that those that taut Vattel, with the father and mother as separate entities are set in stone and this is wrong. The equation they use is Citizen Father (1) and Citizen Mother (2) and Born in Country(3), as a three legged stool. This is shortsighted as Vattel states in § 213. Inhabitants. …their children follow the condition of their fathers;
    Again; Their children follow the condition of their fathers

    Then in § 215. …By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular…

    Again; children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular

    This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.

    Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.

    Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.

    To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement

    Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”

    Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.

    This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.

    Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

    Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason

    1. The two citizen parent condition still does matter.
      Coverture meant that a woman assumed the citizenship of the husband upon their marriage. That made the two = ONE. So now the woman and the man + legitimate offspring, when born in the country = natural born Citizens.

      If a married man were to unfaithfully impregnate a non-US citizen woman, the offspring of that married man and foreign woman, even if born in the USA, would not be a natural born Citizen, because the parents were not LEGALLY nor morally married.

      As you itemized, positive law diluted coverture, a natural condition, over the decades by society and the courts into a meaningless antiquated word.

    2. The Law of Nations was relied upon by the founding fathers. It was John Jay, our nation’s first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who suggested that a President must be a natural born citizen (naturel). The exact quote is “Les Naturels,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens”. In 1776 the official language of diplomacy was French. The
      phrase translates into English as “Natural Born are those born in a country to parents who are BOTH citizens”. “Parents Citoyens” means parents who are both citizens. It does not say “Parent Citoyen” one parent who is a citizen. It says “ParentS CitoyenS”.

  8. I wouldn’t count on anything from Barr: President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, said Harris is eligible.


    1. Trump Campaign advisor Jason Miller s said this;

      Q: Why can’t the president say clearly, unequivocally, she is eligible to run for president?

      MILLER: Well, he did. He said last night at his press conference, said it’s not something that the campaign is pursuing.


      And in our opinion, it is case closed. End of story. And the only folks who keep bringing it up are the media.


    2. I wouldn’t count out anything from President Trump. After he’s re-elected he will have more flexibility, just like Obama did. :) Besides, he’s not the only one who could pursue it and do something about it IF she is not eligible.

  9. The 14th Amendment (which was passed only to make former USA slaves citizens so that they would not be left stateless) does not mention and has nothing to do with the definition of natural born Citizen.

    If Harris had been born before the 14th Amendment she would not have been a citizen at all. Obviously the 14th Amendment was not part of the Constitution when the Founders made natural born Citizen a presidential job requirement, so if in the Founders’ time someone with birth circumstances exactly Harris would not have even been a citizen, then the Founders could not have possibly considered someone like Harris to be a natural born Citizen. Q.E.D.

    1. That is not correct. Children of aliens born in the US were citizens (i. e., natural born citizens) before the passage of the 14th Amendment. This was because we followed English common law rules for determining citizenship for white Europeans. That citizenship was not extended to former slaves however because of racism. The Wong Kim Ark majority opinion outlines this history in great detail.

      1. In the UK they had one sovereign with everyone else being subjects. It suited the UK sovereign’s needs to be able to impress “subjects” (such as USA citizens in the early 1800s) into the navy, so the definition of natural born subject was made as loose and all encompassing as possible, the exact opposite of purpose of the definition of natural born Citizen.

        In the USA our chief executive is a public servant who serves under the sovereigns, i.e., each and every sovereign citizen (the exact opposite of the UK system). The natural born Citizen clause is a Constitutional job requirement for the presidency (one of three) that was put in place to protect the Republic and its sovereign citizens from foreign intrigue and influence. It makes sense that it would be as restrictive as possible against foreign allegiances in our Commander-in-Chief, the head of our military might. A natural born Citizen must be free of any and all alien allegiance at birth.

        There are no substantive political parallels between these opposites, natural born subject (something the Founders were trying to escape) and natural born Citizen.

        1. There is no evidence from the record of the Constitutional Convention that the Founders changed the definition of “natural born” that they were all familiar. Not one of the founders mentioned that they changed it. That’s why the term “natural born subject” is in at least one state constitution and continued to appear in citizenship proclamations for years after the Constitution was adopted. The Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of terms not otherwise defined in the US Constitution is to be determined from English Common Law.

        2. From the Wong Kim Ark decision citing Smith v Alabama:

          ” There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

        3. Hi everybody,

          State constitution that adopted the English Common Law:

          1. Constitution of New Jersey; July 2nd 1776

          XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

          2. Constitution of Delaware; 1776

          ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

          3. The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

          XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of , as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

          State Constitutions that use the term natural born subjects:

          1. The Vermont Constitution of 1777

          “SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence”

          Revised Vermont constitution in 1786,

          “XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”

          2. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

          SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

          State laws using the term natural born subject,

          1. Delaware, 1888

          A Supplementary ACT to the act, intituled” An act for naturalization, (a)

          WHEREAS for the encouragement of aliens or foreigners already settled, or that may hereafter come to settle within this state, it is become necessary, since the change of government, that further provision should be made for enabling them to enjoy the rights and privileges of natural-born subjects of this state;

          SECTION I . BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of Delaware, That any alien or foreigner already settled, or inhabiting within this state, or who shall hereafter come to settle or reside therein, and shall before the President of the state, or before the Supreme Court in any of the counties of this state, take, repeat and subscribe, the oath or affirmation directed by the twenty-second article of the constitution or system of government of this state, (b) to be taken by Members of the General Assembly, or persons appointed to offices or places of trust, (which said oath or affirmation, and subscription thereof, the President or the Supreme Court are hereby impowered to administer,) shall thereupon and thereafter be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be a natural born subject of this state and shall be thenceforth entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges of a natural born subject of this state : …”

          2. Massachusetts 1798

          “Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that none but Natural Born Subjects be eligible to certain offices”

          The act goes on to request that the President, Vice-President, Senators and Representaives be “natural born Citizens.”

          3. Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization 1785 to 1791

          Between 1785 and 1791, 14 naturalization acts were passed using either term, natural born citizen or natural born subject. Here are two examples:

          June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

          November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

          If you wish links to these let me know.

        4. @ Randy Disher,

          ” There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

          You are quoting dicta, which is not part of the holding. Dicta carries no legal weight. Are you purposefully trying to deceive?

          By the way, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark held that a child of permanent resident aliens prohibited by law from becoming citizens was a legal citizen, nothing more (natural born Citizen was not even mentioned in the holding). Good luck finding a person in a situation like that today.

        5. Here are links to the Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization:



























          That last one for John White and Others in March, 1791 is interesting as both terms NBC and NBS appear and it is after the Constitution has been ratified:


          “Whereas John White, Roger Dickson, and John Atkinson (the said Atkinson in behalf of himself, his wife and children) have petitioned the General Court that they may be naturalized, & thereby become intitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens; and having produced sufficient testimonials of their good character:”


          “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        6. @ Des Courney,

          “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

          This statement does not declare anyone to be a USA natural born Citizen as there were no adults meeting that qualification at that time and, thus, this collection of statements are all irrelevant to the presidential eligibility (job requirement) issues raised by this article. What it does do is to indirectly confirm that all citizens are equal under the law.

        7. I don’t think people understated the significance of the Massachusetts’ Acts of Naturalization and the other examples.

          The Founders used the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably. They meant the same thing.

          So if the Framers changed that definition to something else – where is the evidence?

          BTW, here is another example:

          “THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”


          “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

          From Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court in “A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books (1795)”


          If children born in Connecticut to aliens were natural born, how did the people of Connecticut know that the US Constitution changed that definition?

          Where is the documentation?

          That is what you need to provide – the documentation that the people were told about the change from the English Common Law definition to the Law of Nations definition.

      2. The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence debunks your opinion that the Founders followed English common law, rather that they followed natural law, specifically God’s law.

      3. The ruling that terms in the Constitution were to be defined using English Common Law in Wong Kim Ark was not obiter dicta. It was central to the part of the ruling that Wong would have been a citizen even without the 14th Amendment. Justice Gray goes through a long history of the term natural born subject and birthright citizenship going back to Calvin’s case. Gray was not doing that just to fill up space. He was explaining that before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified that in effect the same rules applied for natural born citizens in the United States as were in place for natural born subjects prior to the existence of the United States.

        The need for Fourteenth Amendment had been brought about by the denial to blacks the same rights to be a natural born citizen as had been afforded to whites of European descent. The Wong Kim Ark case came about because the US Government was trying to introduce race as a reason to deny a person of Chinese descent natural born citizenship that was rightfully his. In their opposition filings the government even acknowledged that were the court to rule in Wong’s favor he would be eligible to serve as president. Other contemporary publications and at least one leading attorney in the country came to the same conclusion.

        So your arguments about the purity of natural born citizenship and under the jurisdiction are not new at all. They are the same ones made by the US in Wong Kim Ark. They lost.

  10. That article quoted Duckworth as saying she and Obama had a “kama’aina connection,” meaning both had lived in Hawaii.

    Duckworth didn’t say that Obama was born in Indonesia.

  11. By rights Kamala Harris should not even be a citizen.

    The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Anchor babies are only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

    Section 1. 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. […]

    Consider the following two unassailable points.

    1) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary alien visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.

    2) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, alien students and other temporary alien visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.

    1. Sorry but you are wrong again. The 14th Amendment clarifies that US citizenship also implies state citizenship. The Supreme Court has ruled that even the children of undocumented aliens are citizens of the United States.

      1. Nope, there is no logical positive purpose or benefit to the USA to what you suggest, ergo no sane congress would ever enact such a rule as you claim. Just read the congressional record of the time for the reasoning of the authors of the 14th Amendment as explained in their own words. It clearly was their expressed intent only to grant citizenship to former USA slaves (who otherwise would have been stateless, by the way) and nothing more.

        Anchor babies of alien trespassers are born under the political jurisdiction of the land(s) of their alien parents’ citizenship (not the USA) and do not need USA citizenship to avoid being stateless. The anchor baby misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is a modern “living document” perversion of the Constitution and the intent of those who framed it and its amendments, regardless of the transient opinion of any court.

        By the way, today’s timely and relevant issue is not USA citizenship, rather is USA natural born Citizenship, something the SCOTUS has never directly defined (although they have very strongly indirectly indicated that it means born in the USA to USA citizen parents).

        1. You might want to check out two SCOTUS cases:

          Plyler v Doe 1982 … recognizing the right of unauthorized immigrant children to a free public education—all nine Supreme Court justices accepted the proposition that unauthorized immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of a state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, just as they are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” for purposes of the Citizenship Clause

          1985 INS v. Rios-Pineda, which pertained to a form of immigration relief that was then available to certain parents of U.S. citizens, Justice Byron White wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that the respondents in the case—a married couple who were both unauthorized immigrants—“had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”

          Also the Supreme Court has never ruled that someone born a citizen on US soil is not a natural born citizen. There is not a separate class of “14th Amendment citizens”. That’s just fiction.

  12. Bud White, It is unlawful for anyone to attain to an office that one is NOT eligible to enter into. It is election fraud. A quo warranto simply requests, on the basis of probable cause to believe that the candidate is not eligible, that the respondent prove their right and entitlement to enter into that Office. My request is an “information in the form of quo warranto” a request to the US Attorney General to sue Kamala Harris in the government’s name. It is a challenge to Kamala Harris’ bona-fides to be President or VP. I must first ask the USAG to act. Should he decline, I can then initiate a claim on my own, “In the name of the U.S. Government” in the U.S.District Court for D.C. You may recall that I was instructed by a U.S. District Court Magistrate in the Western District of NY that the proper venue to sue a usurper is the District of Columbia. It is illegal under the DC code to impersonate a public official, file a false statement and commit fraud against the electoral process.

    1. “I must first ask the USAG to act. Should he decline, I can then initiate a claim on my own, “In the name of the U.S. Government” in the U.S.District Court for D.C.”

      This is wrong. You are not an “interested person” as cited in D.C. code. You do not have a personal interest in the Vice-Presidency.

      “The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant.” Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)


      D.C. Code for quo warranto


      1. All sovereign citizens of the USA have a personal stake (vulnerability to harm) in the eligibility of those who present themselves for election to become servants of their sovereign citizen masters, regardless of the holding of any black robed tyrant. In the case of the two elected public servants in the executive, the potential harm is to all USA citizens and is immediate and direct. This is common sense and is obvious on its face.

        1. If you were paying attention in 2008, 2012, and 2016 you must have missed that the courts resoundingly and consistently rejected this argument of generalized injury. If you do not think a candidate is eligible you have the option of voting for someone else. Trump and Pence MIGHT have standing to challenge Harris when she is added to ballots in all 50 states. However, based on statements by their people this weekend I doubt that is going to happen. I think they know the issue is a loser and will only make them look even more like racists.

        2. To Randy Disher,

          Who has more stake, one job applicant for a servants position suing another for not meeting the job qualification, or the boss (any sovereign citizen) attempting to reject or fire a servant wannabe or servant for fraud?

          The SCOTUS were cowards for not dealing with the issue.

      2. The Common Law Writ of Quo Warranto. http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/13/the-common-law-writ-of-quo-warranto I have “pointed the finger” at Kamala Harris as being ineligible. It is a lawful “petition to the government for redress of grievances” under my first amendment rights. You let me worry and deal with whether or not I have standing. I do not intend to sue in court in my own name, I intend to sue in court in the name of the United States government. I already have the paper work to initiate a civil suit in the U.S.D.C. for D.C. I followed the proper procedure in asking Barr to prosecute. There are court precedents allowing a private citizen to take up the matter “in the name of the U.S. government” should the AG decline to proceed. I have the right as a sovereign (member of “we the people” as ruler of the government) to defend the U.S. from usurpation of our Presidency and vice presidency. I have done so TWICE already in the last (12) years all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

        1. Standing is not in the Constitution. I have always maintained it is a legal artifice used by the courts to conveniently avoid that which they do not want to address. Every American has standing to determine whether the candidates on the ballot are constitutionally qualified. The courts say otherwise and that is total BS. A total dodge and a clear abrogation of their duties. Defies common sense.

  13. Time for us patriots to keep America great by enforcing the laws of our great land. The constitution is clear on who can be elected to the highest office. There is no ambiguity and yet so many conspire to bypass these our most important laws – the very foundation of our land.

    -Bob Bonson
    Husband, Father, Natural born American, Patriot, Christian, Constitutionalist, Republican

  14. Harris is clearly ineligible for the presidency (or to be VP). She is essentially an anchor baby born to two temporary resident aliens and was raised during her most formative years in a foreign land. She was born with multiple conflicting citizenships and allegiances. The Constitution demands that only 100 percent USA citizens through-and-through ever become Commander-in-Chief (out of the three listed presidential job requirements, this one was crafted to protect the Republic from foreign influence and intrigue).

    Here are three unassailable points of logic that RINOs, leftists, the deep state and New World Order types always run from:

    Point 1. The adjective “natural” in the phrase “natural born Citizen” must not be superfluous and without contributing further significant restrictive meaning to the phrase it modifies, therefore a natural born Citizen must be a significantly restricted subset of born citizen (citizen at birth). Clearly the two phrases (citizen at birth and natural born Citizen) must mean significantly different things with the latter being a restrictive subset of the former. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the deliberate, articulate elegance of the Founders who meticulously crafted the Constitution over weeks and months.

    Point 2. The Founders wrote the Constitution in simple, everyday language meant to be understood by the ordinary citizen. Words mean things and natural means of or by nature as opposed to of or by man. The only type citizen whose citizenship does not depend on man’s law is a natural born Citizen. All other citizen type are citizens by law, i.e., statutory born citizens.Why does a natural born Citizen’s citizenship depend on no law? Because they are an inherent 100 percent American solely by the nature (that word again) of their birth circumstances. When one is born in the territory of the USA to two 100 percent USA citizen parents, one is by inherent nature a 100 percent USA citizen because no other outcome is possible, so no law is needed.

    Point 3. Three inherent characteristics at birth are generally considered to contribute to citizenship and to one’s natural allegiances, these being: the citizenship of one’s father, the citizenship of one’s mother and the land of one’s birth (normally where one is raised). The Founders’ explicit stated purpose of restricting the presidency to only natural born Citizens was to provide a strong check to prevent the republic from falling prey to a presidency (and military) subverted by foreign influence and intrigue. It strains all logic and common sense to beyond credulity to suggest that the Founders would believe that a strong check would be provided by requiring just one of these characteristics (the least restrictive combination) rather than all three (the most restrictive combination).

    1. Thinkwell:

      Very good and I totally agree. Adjectives mean something in language use and logic and common sense! See my article on using Euler Diagrams to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/ and https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2019-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president/

      And so does the U.S. Supreme Court agree with you. One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution! Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.

      As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840):

      “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”

      CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

      1. Hello CDR Kerchner,

        I haven’t participated in this forum in a while and just realized there now is a reply feature. I also want to let you know that I appreciate the calm, logical way you think and write. :)

        I wish that a minor born with or who has otherwise obtained USA recognized multiple citizenships (USA plus any others) should, within one year of obtaining the age of majority (normally 18), have to naturalize as a USA citizen and legally renounce all other citizenships or become an alien. This would prevent dual citizenship in adults and make it clear who is naturalized and who is a natural born Citizen. Of course the other side of this coin is that no adult citizen should be allowed to take on any other citizenship without first legally renouncing their USA citizenship.

        An important point all should recognize (of course you do) is that all citizens are equal under the law and under the Constitution. Presidential Constitutional qualifications are just job requirements intended to protect the Republic from lack of wisdom, lack of intimate fealty with the USA and from foreign intrigue or allegiance. A 35+ year old is not a different class of citizen. Neither is being natural born.

        1. There certainly is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. If the founders did not intend to differentiate the requirement to be a Senator with the requirement to be VP and/or President then they would have used the term of art “Citizen” in both cases. One who is “born or naturalized” in the US is a “Citizen” but NOT all persons born in the US are Natural Born Citizens which requires that one be born in the US IN ADDITION TO being born to parents who are both US Citizens themselves.

        2. If “citizen” and “natural born citizen” mean the same thing, then there was absolutely no need to have the grandfather clause in Article II.

      2. Hello CDR Kerchner,

        I used to argue the meaning nbC citing many of the documents that you often cite (and that is always valuable, especially in a legal setting), but I have come to realize that most people don’t respond well to a wall of text and that the naysayers use the details and minutia to waylay and wear down a discussion, so I now try to concentrate on “words mean things” and lead the ignorant and enemies of the Constitution to concentrate on the meaning, purpose and added value of the word “natural” to the phrase “born citizen.”

        Natural means by nature, not by man or man’s law, and its value is to exclude foreign intrigue or influence from the executive (of course you know that – this for the reader). I try to get the ignorant to explain why “natural” was added to the phrase and the purpose that it serves. The creative naysayer may occasionally come up with horribly convoluted counter reasons, but Occam’s razor and common sense lead only to the Founders’ understanding. Most naysayers refuse to answer these questions at all, thereby admitting defeat.

        With the luxury of hindsight, I wish the Founders had written the requirement to be “born and raised free of all foreign citizenships and allegiances” (obviously that was their intent). In fact, Vattel’s definition may have been used because it was well known at the time and was an easy “bright line” definition.

        Times have changed and global travel is easy and commonplace, so being born somewhere does not mean being raised there, weakening Jus soli. Also, many modern nations allow dual citizenship and even our own naturalization process was watered down by aka obama to no longer require renunciation of all foreign citizenships (may be wrong about this – going by several year old memory), so there (probably) now is a new avenue for citizens of naturalized parents to be born with dangling allegiances (the founders must be spinning in their graves).

        The bright line nbC requirement excludes citizens born over international waters or born to USA tourists briefly abroad in countries that make no Jus soli claim (thus no dangling allegiances), so in this way it is slightly unnecessarily restrictive compared to the allegiance at birth test, but I suppose this category was considered to be vanishingly small enough to be sacrificed for expediency.

        Also, the nbC requirement lets through children of naturalized citizens who still retain USA recognize alien dual citizenship (of course, the Founders could not have anticipated this).

        I am interested in your thoughts on these matters.

  15. I thought the quo warranto had to be filed after someone took office. At this point Harris has not usurped the office.

    If I’m not mistaken an ineligible person can legally run for office.

    1. If a Constitutionally-ineligible POTUS/VP candidate was to swear under oath and sign an affidavit that he/she is Constitutionally eligible, wouldn’t that constitute fraud?

      1. It might be fraud if the declarant knew it was false. But with the CRS memos, the Ankeny case, etc., it would be difficult to prove Harris knew to be false when there are all these legal authorities saying she’s eligible.

        1. She isn’t eligible. She has been given fair warning by me that she is not eligible. It is her responsibility to make sure she is eligible. My quo warranto request is to force her to prove she is eligible. It is a challenge to her claim that she is.

      2. If it is during time of war, it constitutes treason and espionage under 18USC and 10USC. It carries the death penalty,if convicted.

  16. Is it too much to ask that we all, citizens of the United States of America, have the Constitutional laws applied to us equally? How can the courts, the supposed bastions of Justice, look the other way for some? Of course we all recognize that if this matter is successfully pursued, Nancy Pelosi can be held complicit in treasonous fraud. That wont happen.

  17. Jack Cockle, Duckworth was in consideration for VP. The 12th Amendment requires that a VP also be a Natural Born Citizen. Duckworth is NOT an NBC.

    1. The letter said “running.” Duckworth never ran for the “Presidency.”

      But, according to reports, concerns about her eligibility were cited as reasons for her not being selected as the vice president nominee.

    2. Back in the day, I actually screen shot and sent the file to Sharon (thepostemail.com) of the Honolulu Press interview of Duckworth with that reporter as the statement, “we Barry Sotero and I have a lot in common attending a Hawaiian High School as foreign students”.

      Perhaps not the direct quote as it has been a long time since then, but the web story was pulled when I contacted the Honolulu Press about the story. They never returned my calls or emails regarding the inquiry. Sad day for America since then, Barry continues to work behind the scenes to thwart all things America. His network of complicit media, rioters, BLM, ANTIFA, & Soros funded operations are full scale attacks on the Republic.

      We pray everyday that righteousness will prevail and the evil will have the expiration date a Sovereign God has set. His mercies are new every morning…

  18. The treason of Barack Obama and now, attempted treason by Kamala Harris, is especially egregious because they didn’t just pretend ignorance and mis-conflate “natural born” with “naturalized”, and ask the American people if they knew the difference, but they conspired with a whole lot of low-life, lieyer scoundrels to foist a crafty deception on the American people.

    The whole weight of the law needs to crash down on them or it will be done again and again.

  19. Senator Duckworth was being discussed at times in political circles as a prospect for Vice President on the Biden ticket. Thus the constitutional eligibility issue for her is an issue too. The people need to be informed as to who is eligible and who is not since the political parties don’t seem to care about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution at all anymore. She was born in Thailand. See my June 2020 write up about her at this link: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/06/02/u-s-senator-duckworth-holds-dual-citizenship-and-dual-allegiance-to-two-countries/ — CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

  20. Hopefully, Robert, you (and, in turn, other like-minded patriots) will get a prompt reply. I’m not holding my breath though. Our country is fast becoming lawless. Our heretofore sacred Constitution is being trashed. In my opinion, our federal government is becoming little more than a RICO operation. The Mob. The Deep State. The Swamp. The pathological liars. The sell-outs. Those who will look you in the eye and tell you “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help you!” My God, what has become of humanity.