by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 20, 2021) —  Robert C. Laity’s recently-filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing on the constitutional eligibility of Kamala Harris claims she is “NOT the bona-fide Vice-President of the United States” and asks the court to set aside its June 1, 2021 denial of his petition for a writ of certiorari.

As The Post & Email has reported, Laity believes Harris is ineligible to serve as vice president given that although born in the United States in 1964, her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time.

In April, Laity’s case was docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court and scheduled for conference on May 28, 2021. On June 1, the court denied Laity’s petition for a writ of certiorari with comment or dissent from any of its members.

Prior to appealing to the high court, Laity had asked, through a petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto, the U.S. Attorney General and White House to investigate whether or not Harris met the qualifications of the vice-presidency. Receiving no response, in September Laity filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, later appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which found Laity to lack “standing” and to have brought a “frivolous” case.

Documents posted last month by the Twitter account @KamalaKancel appear to show that Harris’s father, Donald J. Harris, naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1981; whether or not her late mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, ever became a U.S. citizen is in question. Both parents, hailing from Jamaica and India, respectively, were present in the United States on student visas when Kamala was born, followed by several extensions or revisions of that status on the part of Gopalan Harris.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states three requirements for the president and commander-in-chief: that he have resided for 14 years within the country, be a minimum of 35 years of age, and a “natural born Citizen.”

While the Framers did not define the term, some scholars believe that a “natural born Citizen” is one with undivided allegiance, necessitating a birth in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of birth.

Others argue that a birth in the United States without regard to the parents’ citizenship or status is sufficient to meet the “natural-born” requirement. Still others, including two former solicitors general, say a birth outside the country to one U.S.-citizen parent is not disqualifying.

In the case of the late Sen. John McCain, some claimed that his birth in Panama to two citizen parents, one of whom was serving as an admiral in the Navy at the time, included him among the “natural born.” In April 2008, when McCain was seeking the Republican nomination for president, the U.S. Senate passed Sen. Res. 511 affirming that assertion.

Notably, no such resolution was passed for Barack Hussein Obama, who claimed to have been born in Hawaii to a U.S.-citizen mother and British-citizen father and was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination at the time. Nevertheless, Obama supported the McCain resolution.

In 1804, the passage of the 12th Amendment extended the presidential eligibility criteria to vice-presidential candidates.

In 2008, Laity challenged Obama’s eligibility in similar fashion to Laity v. Harris.

Laity’s latest filing can be read here:

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Liars and prevaricators use a tactic wherein they admit to wrongdoing and then start laughing. This to detract from any criticism of said comment. This to falsely be able to claim later that they were “Joking”. Clarence Thomas’ admission that SCOTUS is “evading” the eligibility issue was NOT a “Joke”. BTW, persons born in Puerto Rico are NOT eligible to be President or VP. Puerto Rico is NOT a fully incorporated and organized territory of the United States.

    1. Thomas was laughing when he made the statement, the examining Congress member also was laughing, as were other people in the room. The remark was an irrelevant aside from the hearing’s topic and a reference to an earlier conversation. All hallmarks of a joke, and not a serious statement.

      Who was the “prominent attorney” that advised Laity on his cert. petition’s chances of success?

  2. The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on Laity’s rehearing petition today.

    The denial should issue in October.

  3. .

    harris – emhoff – dla piper – knowles – malloch-brown – queen’s privy counsel – mugica – optech – smartmatic – london – anglo bankers – crown – ccp – hsbc toronto – dvs….. <——- loop.


    "Queen and Chinese President – 2015"




    "War Between The White House and CIA?"


    1. If Putin had a kid born in the US, he/she would be eligible fo POTUS with the present line of thinking!
      Not what the Founders had in mind IMHO.

      1. One of the minor exceptions to those born in the United States being natural-born citizens is children of diplomats. Surely a nation’s head of government would be considered a diplomat.

        Regardless, eligibility and electability are different concepts.

  4. In the article you wrote:

    ” On June 1, the court denied Laity’s petition for a writ of certiorari with comment or dissent from any of its members.”

    When a petition for certiorari is denied without comment or dissent it means that no justice would have granted the petition. It means that every justice agreed that the petition had no merit and the denial was unanimous.

      1. It is an indicator of the lack of likelihood of success on rehearing.

        Especially when the petition for rehearing just reiterates points that were already unpersuasive.

      2. It means that when Mr. Laity claimed he only needed one more justice to agree to hear his position because he had three already he was either badly misinformed or not being truthful.

        1. I was not being untruthful. I was advised by a prominent attorney expressing an educated opinion. That is neither a lie nor misinformation. In any event the case is not over until it’s over.

        2. Which “prominent attorney”?

          What was the basis for this attorney’s “educated opinion”?

          The rehearing petition’s denial will be announced in October.

  5. Is it possible that one of these questionable candidates to the office of POTUS and/or VPOTUS could have the integrity to set aside their naked ambition and, before throwing their hat in the ring, petition the courts in their own name to decide his/her particular circumstances as to eligibility for him/her alone? Would that person have “standing”?

    1. Very doubtful.

      The courts generally do not issue advisory opinions. Someone would have to sue the challenged candidate. And in at least federal court, that generally would mean another candidate.

      Abdul Hassan filed several lawsuits challenging his exclusion from various ballots. But Hassan readily admitted that he was not a natural-born citizen.

  6. I’ve asked this question before but I’d like to give it another shot.
    I already know what Laity, Wilmott and others answer will be (btw, I’m on their side.) I want to know, according to the rigged, unlawful, corrupt system with SCOTUS and other courts, would THEY allow a baby who was born on US soil by an alien couple from Mars who made it here just in time for mammy alien to give birth…to grow up and run for President, and become President?

        1. That does not answer the question: Humans from Earth living on Mars or another species from some planet other than Earth?

          Because the answer to the first question depends on the answer to the second question.

      1. “That does not answer the question: Humans from Earth living on Mars or another species from some planet other than Earth?

        Because the answer to the first question depends on the answer to the second question.”

        Oh yes it does answer the question, Mr. Wilson. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 does not contain the word “human” but, rather, “person”. And since the Constitution does not define person, person can just as easily mean being of a species from Mars just as easily as it can mean being of the human species from Earth.

        So you see, Mr. Wilson, the answer to the first question does not depend on the answer to the second question. Rather, the answer to the first question depends on the definition of person. :)

        1. So close but incorrect: there are numerous cases that define what “person” means, and none of them are as expansive as you suggest.

          Until the courts define “person” to include a species beyond humans, a species from another planet but born in the United States would not be a natural-born citizen.

    1. Thanks Jeff. The New American just printed an article on Kamala Harris “ineligibility” to be VP or President. It talks about the similar case, brought by the Constitution Association, now pending in Federal Court in California challenging Harris’ bona-fides as VP. The article was written by Steve Byas, Professor of History and Government.

      1. The Constitution Association’s case will also be dismissed for lack of standing.

        Byas, who has no legal training, acknowledged in his article the concept of standing, but failed to mention the pending order to show cause (as well as the the government’s pleadings) in that case.

  7. Laws and rules are made to advance a policy. It has long been established that persons have an affinity, loyalty, or attachment to the place where they were born and to the nations of which their parents are citizens.

    The Framers included the natural born citizen clause in Article II to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. That means that the Framers did not want those singular and powerful offices to devolve upon a person who may be disloyal to the United States and its fundamental and founding principles. The bottom line is that the Framers included the clause for the sake of our national security and defense.

    This leads us to the question of why would someone want to dilute the natural born citizen clause? What could be the policy reason for seeking a weaker clause, one that would allow a person born with conflicting allegiances to the U.S. to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military? Maybe Henry Wilson can enlighten us with his answers this these questions.

    1. The “policy” is to apply the law as written, and not to compel the law desired.

      If you believe the presidency and vice presidency are not adequately safeguarded against foreign influence, the constitutional approach would be to amend the U.S. Constitution.

      1. If you believe the presidency and vice presidency should have less of an eligibility standard, i.e., by requiring that one be a “citizen” of the United States rather than a “natural born citizen” of the United States, the lawful thing to do would be to amend the U.S. Constitution.

        1. There have been several attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to permit naturalized citizens to serve as the president. But none has succeeded. So the natural-born-citizen requirement remains.

          Regardless, every judge who has considered the eligibility issue concluded that everyone (subject to minor exceptions) born in the United States is a natural-born citizen.

      2. I executed “Plan B” on June 19, 2021. I am working with a local congressman to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to finally state what the Term of Art “Natural Born Citizen SHALL mean…” pursuant to Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 USConst. I have been working with this Congressman for months regarding this issue.

        1. Doesn’t that mean you will need 2/3rds vote in both Houses of Congress to move it to the states?

          Prediction, never gets out of a committee.

        2. Seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution is exactly the method to be used to redefine legal concepts and rulings. The 14th Amendment abrogated Dred Scott v. Sandford, for example; and the 19th Amendment abrogated Minor v. Happersett.

          But even if such a resolution is introduced during this session of Congress, it (like most proposed amendments) will not be voted out of committee.

        3. Well done. It’s never been clear why this didn’t begin to be pursued 12 years ago.

          In over 200 eligibility cases, courts determined that just being born in the USA was enough to be considered a Natural Born Citizen. PDF at

          The first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. To add a third would require the Constitution to be amended. So this is a worthy endeavor.

          Article V of the United States Constitution outlines basic procedures for constitutional amendment:

          1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
          2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
          3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

          It’s great that a Congressman has gotten behind this, who is he or she? Maybe by publicizing it, more Representatives will get on board so they can get to the two-thirds of the House needs to forward it to the states.

        4. Actually, communicating with a member of Congress and suggesting an amendment to push your (wrong) idea of a definition of natural born citizen makes a lot more sense than your quo warranto lawsuit that failed.

          However, the reality is that there is no appetite in Congress to pass such an amendment. First, the only gray area on eligibility outside the tiny Birther world is concerning those born to a US parent abroad (for simplicity let’s call them Ted Cruz type candidates). Second, Congress is not going to prevent perhaps millions of otherwise eligible citizens from running for president based on a belief that has consistently failed to gain any traction in the courts and that the vast majority of legal scholars believe is wrong. That’s the reality of the situation and it isn’t going to change.

  8. I have a certified copy of Donald Harris’ Naturalizations papers signed and certified, with Gold Seal and Red Ribbon, by Stephani Bayless, the Director of the National Archives and Records Administration at San Francisco. Mr. Harris was made a US citizen on October 20, 1981.

    The promise he made in his Oath of Allegiance stated that he “hereby declare[d], on oath that [he] ABSOLUTELY and ENTIRELY renounce[d] and abjure[d] ALL allegiance and fidelity to ANY foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which [he had] heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

    It is noteworthy that after he BECAME a US Citizen he returned to Jamaica in the employ of the Jamaican Government as an Economic policy analyst and advisor to several Jamaican prime ministers.

    That was not in keeping with his Oath of Allegiance to the United States and in my opinion, a breach of his sworn oath as a US Naturalized Citizen.

  9. The article overlooks the FACT that Kamala Harris under Chapter 3 of the Jamaican Constitution has every right and claim to dual citizenship with Jamaica AND under Indian law also has special privileges afforded her while in India assuming she is an American passport holder. Hardly the type of candidate the Founding Fathers envisioned to be the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. Divided allegiances and clearly NOT a NATURAL BORN citizen = the nasty, incompetent, unlikeable fraud posing as the the current VPOTUS.

  10. The petition for rehearing just restates the arguments already rejected.

    Rehearing will be denied, most likely in October following the long conference.

    1. Your smug confidence, is based on your faith in the anti-American media propaganda, and the rampant corruption in our government and our judicial system. Just because you and the Obama sycophants and the Marxists in power control the agenda which includes running illegitimate candidates and rigging elections doesn’t mean that patriots like Robert Laity and many others who fight for the Constitution and the founding principles should give up for what is right, what is just, and constitutional. We want our country back. The likes of people such as yourself only serve to destroy and divide the country and I might add, seemingly take great delight in doing so. Can you just get lost? You bring nothing to the table but leftist dribble and devisive rhetoric.

      1. Well stated, Gary.

        Things that needed to said herein.

        In today’s raging War Between the States of Mind, with Kamala DEVI[L] Harris pompously strutting about, as “America’s first FRAUD-Female VP”, it is relentless patriots like Robert Laity who can make a national difference, by remodeling millions of frames of mind from subjective “believing is seeing” (Harry Wilson, BLM marxists, Maxine Waters, et al) to objective “seeing is believing” (Trump, Laity, The P&E, et al), me thinks.

        FREE THINKER vs MIND SLAVERY, as we witness, everyday, the MIND SLAVERY of those folks who adamantly engage in the WILLFUL IGNORANCE of knowing what they don’t want to know!

        Here are some other examples of today’s MIND SLAVERY of WILLFUL IGNORANCE:


        BLACK LIES MATTER: and presIDent Soetoro-Obama II 2008- 2016


      2. There is no possibility that the Supreme Court would overturn a presidential election in the fashion you apparently wish, even if they thought the legal arguments were compelling to any but a small mob of crackpots. They’d no more toss Trump for having his first allegiance to money rather than the country. And the whole notion that anyone’s loyalties would change because their parents became citizens a week before giving birth vs. a week after is pure nonsense. No one disputes that Timothy McVeigh was an NBC, but his blowing up the Oklahoma City Federal Building casts considerable doubt on his allegiance to this country.

        You should try fantasy football instead of fantasy legal work.

        1. Bill,

          Are you another example of today’s MIND SLAVERY of WILLFUL IGNORANCE?

          Are you upset that crack-and-pot crackpot, Barry Soetoro-Obama II, with his cocaine-stained-brain, NEVER WAS, NEVER IS, and NEVER WILL BE A CONSTITUTIONAL “natural born Citizen”? How about Canada Cruz and foreign-allegiances Kamala Harris-Emhoff?

          Putting all fantasy legal work aside, UNIVERSAL OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY reveal Obama’s repeated natural UN-CONSTITUTIONAL anti-America BEHAVIOR is a direct reflection of his life-sensations-acquired natural UN-CONSTITUTIONAL foreign invisible THINKING. Nature Rules, and men follow!

          What proof, not spoof, do you offer that these other observations of reality are also fantasy:

        2. On the contrary Bill, under the D.C. Code, Chapter 35, Harris on a Writ of Quo Warranto CAN BE defenestrated from office upon a finding that she is not eligible to hold the office that she has usurped.

        3. .
          Dear Will,
          Like Henri, et al, one protesteth too much.
          These lot run scared Folks –
          knowing extent of Fraud they
          shill for is Gargantuan –
          accompanied by proportionate
          ‘big league’ style penalties.
          We witness fullest expression of
          the Mammon Centric System,
          by all the fearful ones,
          having given themselves over,
          to a reprobate mind.
          Thus can we deduce,
          Robert is over target.

        4. Even assuming that the vice presidency is subject to a quo warranto petition, it must be brought the correct petitioner. And the courts had little difficulty in concluding that was not Laity.

          To believe a series of dismissals and denials is being over the target suggests a lack of understanding in how either the courts or targeting actually work.

        5. i did not say it cannot happen because the law does not permit it — I said there is no possibility it will happen. And indeed, this time next year, you all will still be acting like you live in your mother’s basement, and Ms. Harris will still have one of the two highest offices in the US government.

          If history proves me wrong on this score, I will post an acknowledgment here on or before July 4, 2022. I predict none of you will have the intellectual honesty or courage to do so.

      3. My confidence in predicting that Laity’s petition will be denied is based on observing the past.

        Every judge who has considered Laity’s case has rejected Laity’s belief. Including the U.S. Supreme Court already.

        More generally, Laity has lost every eligibility challenge that he has filed.

        And looking beyond Laity, the U.S. Supreme Court denied almost every cert. petitions and almost every rehearing petition. So seeking rehearing following cert. denial is wishful thinking stacked on wishful thinking.

        What I bring to this table an excellent track record of predicting reality.

        1. What you bring to this table is “Monday morning quarterbacking.” Nothing more and nothing less.

          Like Dem Rep. Maxine Waters told a gathering of her followers to yell at Trump supporters: “You are not welcome here anymore!”

        2. Making predictions is by definition not Monday-morning quarterbacking. Neither is noting the accuracy of past predictions.

          Explaining what has happened also by definition is not Monday-morning quarterbacking.

          Suggesting what would have been a winning strategy might be Monday-morning quarterbacking. But there is no winning move for Laity.

        3. Look folks, it’s the snake-oil salesman. If I’m ever in a foxhole with this human in the future, I will issue him an entrenching tool and assign him the duty of cleaning up after everybodys’ booty. He’ll be the “hockey-jockey,” but while he’s cleaning up hockey I’ll be out of the foxhole fighting for his right to continue selling snake oil made in China.

      1. As I suspected your petition doesn’t begin to meet the requirements for a successful petition for rehearing. It is as if you never even bothered to read the rule you had to meet. Therefore, your failure is cast in stone.

        1. I read the rule that I “had to meet”. There are rules that the Justices must also “meet”. They have abrogated those rules as well as their Judicial oaths.

        2. There’s no evidence that any justice has broken any rule; it isn’t against the rules to disagree with Laity.

          Regardless of how others might have acted, Laity was still required to comply with the court’s rules, and his petition for rehearing only reiterated prior losing arguments.

        3. Telling the justices they were wrong to deny certiorari and are evading the issue does not constitute a valid argument to meet rule 44 concerning rehearings.

          The comment made by Justice Thomas in a Congressional appropriation hearing was concerning the eligibility of native Puerto Ricans to serve as president was made in jest and was part of an ongoing joke between Thomas and Representative Jose Serrano for NY who was native of Puerto Rico.

        4. Thomas was joking: He was the laughing; the Congress member questioning him was laughing; others in the room also were laughing. And it was an aside not relevant to the main topic of the hearing.

          Regardless of whether it was in poor taste or unbecoming of a federal officeholder, it was still just a joke.

          There has been little litigation in the federal courts because the federal courts have limited jurisdiction, which includes jurisdictional concerns such as standing.

        5. Mr. Laity wrote:

          “I read the rule that I “had to meet”. There are rules that the Justices must also “meet”. They have abrogated those rules as well as their Judicial oaths.”

          There are no rules the justices have to meet. They are the ultimate judicial authority. They can only be removed for behavior Congress decides merits impeachment and conviction. As we saw recently even inciting an insurrection inside the halls of the Capitol didn’t meet that bar for a large enough minority in Congress.