by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 10, 2021) — The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged receipt of a petition for rehearing in the case of Laity v. Harris, 20-1503, which claims that former U.S. Senator from California Kamala Harris is not eligible to serve as the nation’s vice president.

An observer noted that the Court posted the update on Thursday, July 8. As stated on the calendar, the Court held the last oral arguments of its “October 2020” term in April, adjourning for its customary three-month summer break earlier this month.

“In May and June the Court sits only to announce orders and opinions,” the Court’s website states. “The Court recesses at the end of June, but the work of the Justices is unceasing. During the summer they continue to analyze new petitions for review, consider motions and applications, and must make preparations for cases scheduled for fall argument.”

The Court returns for its new calendar year on September 27, 2021.

As The Post & Email has reported, on June 1 the Court declined to grant Laity’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Harris without comment.

The case originated last fall in the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, DC and was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. When a three-judge panel dismissed the case for lack of “standing” and threatened monetary sanctions, Laity requested a rehearing from the full court which was denied. From there, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which docketed the case in late April, then distributed it for its June 1 conference.

In his petition for rehearing, Laity claimed that Harris, who was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to two foreign-citizen parents present in the U.S. on student visas, “is NOT the bona-fide Vice-President of the United States. She is not an Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 ‘Natural Born Citizen’,” referring to the section of the U.S. Constitution which sets forth eligibility criteria for the president and commander-in-chief.

With the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, vice-presidential candidates are required to meet all of the qualifications of the president.

Further in his petition, Laity contended, “This court has long established that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is one born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves.” In an apparent reference to a statement U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas made to Rep. José Serrano, then-chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government in 2010 as to presidential eligibility, Laity wrote:

The Constitutional requirement that a President and Vice-President be “Natural Born and Citizen(s)” cannot be abrogated by “evading” the issue. It is the sworn duty of all federal public officers and employees to obey the Constitution of the United States and to defend against all encroachments of said Constitution that is brought to their attention. The purposeful “Evading” of addressing said encroachments constitutes Misprision, Malfeasance in Office and Non-feasance.”

On July 6, legal scholar Joseph DeMaio wrote of the case:

The litigation, of course, involves a challenge by one Robert Laity to the constitutional “natural born Citizen” eligibility of Kamala Devi Harris to serve as vice-president.  His petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – which had affirmed the dismissal of his case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for lack of his “standing” to bring and maintain the action – was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 2021…

While there may be a variety of reasons for this circumstance including, for example, lack of “standing,” “separation of powers,” “political question” or garden variety “the issue is too radioactive,” the fact remains that in the absence of a definitive Supreme Court decision, the question of who can – and more importantly, who cannot – serve as president or vice-president under the Constitution has been sloughed off to the opinions of lower state and federal courts, the Congressional Research Service (more on that later) and a bevy of law professors and former Solicitors General. 

If that collection of “authorities” – as opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court itself – is by default to be deemed as having the “final say” on the interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause, then the Court, at minimum, should articulate that reality.  Lacking that declaration, the issue will continue to surface every four years (or more frequently) into the future.

Separately, Laity is in the process of contacting all members of the U.S. Congress regarding the proposal of a constitutional amendment defining “natural born Citizen” as, “A person born in the United States to parents who are both United States Citizens themselves.”

As of this writing, Laity has reported he sent formal requests via the U.S. Postal Service to all 100 US Senators.

Join the Conversation

48 Comments

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. “It is that simple.”

    If only that were the case.

    First let’s clear something up.

    In July, 1779 Maryland pass a naturalization law. The law contains the phrase “natural born subjects of the state” three times, “natural born subject of the state” and just the phrase “natural born subjects” each once. For a total of five times.

    In April, 1793 the Maryland Gazette reprinted the 1779 law and included both French and German translations. Here is how the terms were translated into French:

    natural born subjects of the state – sujets naturels
    natural born subject of the state – sujets natif de cet état
    natural born subject of the state – au de ètate
    natural born subject of the state – sujets
    natural born subject – sujet naturel

    https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/001284/html/m1284-1313.html

    It is a reasonable assumption that the Founders would have translated “Les naturels, ou indigenes” as “The natural born, or natives”. However that still does mean that the Framers used Vattel in drafting Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Several states incorporated the English Common Law and English statutes into their Constitutions.

    Maryland’s 1776 Constitution for example:
    “III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by facts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights-subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Crecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.”

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp

    The 1779 naturalization act and the 1780 act to naturalize the sons of Baron de Kalb still used the term natural born subject.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=9pxaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR25-IA48&dq=An+ACT+to+naturalize+the+sons+of+the+late+major-general+the+Baron+de+Kalb.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv1eLp2pfxAhVKeKwKHYkLCpoQ6AEwAHoECAcQAw

    In 1784, the Maryland legislature naturalized French Major-General Lafayette as a natural born citizen (as reported in this clipping from 1785).

    https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4090540/frenchman-given-natural-born-status-by/

    In 1784 did the natural born citizens of Maryland have to have been born to two citizen parents?

    1. The Constitution of the USA was ratified in 1787. The US has NO “Subjects”. The British common law no longer applies in the USA. US Common Law does. A “Natural born citizen” cannot be made of any foreigner who naturalizes. The Nationality Act of 1795 made that absolutely clear when it REPEALED the NA of 1790 which illegally conferred NBC status on persons born overseas, even to two US Parents. In any event, where State law is incompatable with the US Constitution the US Constitution controls. Yes, Under US Law, to be NBCs Marylanders and citizens of all OTHER States HAD to be born IN the US to parents who were BOTH US Citizens themselves.

    1. You’re an absolute pain in the butt. Which is of course your objective…to antagonize people who care about upholding the Constitution.

      1. Merely providing an update on this case.

        And the U.S. Constitution is being upheld when judges reject beliefs that have no legal or factual basis.

  2. AMERICA 1620- 2016 [Trump]: from self-government experiment to selfish-government reality

    This is our U.S. Government today:
    https://welovetrump.com/2021/07/10/tucker-carlson-finally-covers-2020-presidential-election-audits/?utm_source=newsletter_randy&utm_medium=mixed&utm_campaign=newsletter_randy

    Our gangster garbage government today, particularly after THE WHOREABLE Mussolini Pelossolini allowed Obama to usurp the presIDency on 08-28-08, is MILLIONS of MINIONS that promote their personal selfish POLITICS so as to over-rule, and ridicule, their sworn Constitutional obligations of national POLICING AND POLICYING.

    We the Wee People down here on Main Street USA could normally fire our selfish government leaders at the ballot box, BUT SYSTEMIC CANDIDATE+VOTER+ELECTION FRAUD has even taken that weapon away from us!

    Yet, We the People still remain KING…because we own everything! Our U.S. Government works for us at our consent, so let’s all rise-up and look-down on our U.S. Government at every opportunity and put our leaders in their subordinated places, just as THE HONORABLE Mr. Laity is doing with attorney-criminals BIDEN II+OBAMA II+KAMALA,TOO, with The P&E’s help EVERYDAY since 08-28-09.

  3. KAMALA HARRIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR VICE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY (AMEND, 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5) AND FOR MANY OTHER REASONS, INCLUDING A FRAUDULENT ELECTION (2020). SHE IS, AT BEST, AN ANCHOR BABY, WHOSE PARENTS WERE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HER BIRTH. HER MOTHER WAS INDIAN (INDIA) AND HER FATHER IS A JAMAICAN SLAVE OWNER. SHE IS NOT BLACK, A POLITICAL TOOL. SHE MET BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AT BERKELEY (HOME OF ANTIFA), TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND HE ENCOURAGED HER TO PROCEED ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, AS HE DID, BECAUSE HE GOT AWAY WITH IT AND STILL IS. OBAMA IS CIA, SATANIST AND IS RUNNING THE “O’BIDEN” FRAUDULENT ELECTION, AND “PRESIDENCY” ALONG WITH OTHERS. OUR NATION IS NOW IN A “FREEFALL”. A FRAUDULENT ELECTION TOOK PLACE IN 2008, AND WE ARE STILL EXPERIENCING THE CONSEQUENCES, AS OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN CALLED OUT, HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS TREASON, OR REPENTED. HE ALSO DID HIS BEST TO DESTROY TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FROM THE BEGINNING (SATANISM). THIS IS A SPIRITUAL BATTLE. BEGUN DECADES AGO, BUT CARRIED ON BY OBAMA AS LYNCHPIN IN OUR LIFETIME. AMERICA MUST REPENT (2 CHRONICLES 7:14) AND TURN TO THE LORD TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT AND RIGHTEOUS, AS ONLY HE CAN.

        1. Accurate but misleading: the burden of proof always is on the person making the initial claim.

          Disproving a negative, and all that.

  4. I disagree with DeMaio saying this, ” the fact remains that in the absence of a definitive Supreme Court decision, the question of who can – and more importantly, who cannot – serve as president or vice-president under the Constitution has been sloughed off to the opinions of lower state and federal courts, the Congressional Research Service (more on that later) and a bevy of law professors and former Solicitors General.

    Supreme Court Justice Morrison Waite said “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    This is almost word for word what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations saying “The natives or natural-born citizens, are children born of parents, who are citizens in the country”. Further, the definition is exposed in many other supreme court decisions, text in the Congressional Globe confirms, and other sources confirm NBC applies to children born in the country to citizen parents. After WW2 an American citizen was prosecuted for spying and this woman was particularly admonished for her misdeeds saying it was worse because she was a natural-born citizen. The Encyclopedia Americana also exposes the definition clearly.

    The murky distortion of natural-born citizen fits those who have not looked at these current texts or have an agenda. Indeed, the US Senate wrote SR-511 being a hall pass for John McCain to run for president in 2008 which although wrong admitted in part McCain’s parents (plural) were citizens (plural). Obama didn’t even pass that hall pass text and shame on the senate for not calling Obama on the carpet for that unprecedented election fraud that perpetuated into today branding the US Senate as inconsiderate arrogant sloth. As much as I yelled at my TV after hearing that screaming “what about Obama?”, our elected fraternity of nothing did exactly that, nothing, and the Obama/Biden crime spree continues to this day.

        1. He translated the Law of Nations from Latin to French. “Les naturels, ou indigenes” refers to The Naturals or indigenous people of a country. The phrase “Les naturels, ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nes de la pays de parents citoyens” means The naturals or indigenous people ARE those born IN a country to parentS who are both citizenS” {Emphasis mine}.

        2. “…ARE those born IN a country to parentS who are both citizenS”

          Isn’t the word “both” translated as “tous les deux”? I don’t see that in Vattel’s passage “…sont ceux qui sont nes de la pays de parents citoyens”

          Maybe a better translation is “…are those born in the country of citizen parents”

      1. From Joseph DeMaio:

        Wilson states: “Vattel never wrote the words ‘natural born citizen.’“

        As discussed in more detail here (Natural Born Citizens and USSC Docket 20-1503 – The Post & Email (thepostemail.com)), while Emmerich de Vattel may not have grouped the English words “natural born citizen” immediately together, Founder John Jay did (To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787 (archives.gov)).

        Moreover, the title to § 212 of the 1758 French edition of Le Droit des Gens is “Des Citoyens et Naturels,” (“The citizens and natives”). De Vattel states, in French, that “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens” or, in English (Chitty 1833 edition), “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those [who are] born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

        While it may be complicated doctoral thesis rocket science to some, to John Jay it was not: he was “hinting” to George Washington that, even if expressed in French, eligibility of the commander-in-chief of the American army to the presidency should be restricted not to an “indigène” or a generic “citoyen,” but to someone born here to parents who were already citizens, i.e., a “natural born Citizen.” It is that simple.

        1. There is no indication that Jay would have assumed that a “natural born citizen” differed from “natural born subject”, a term he would have been familiar all his life. Also at the time Jay wrote Washington the convention had not even defined the roles of the office of the presidency. In short Jay’s letter doesn’t really provide anything to support a definition of natural born including anything other than born on US soil.

        2. It must be noted that in the 18th Century the French language was the ubiquitous language of Diplomacy. The founding fathers were familiar with the French language. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin was ambassador to France. It was he that brought back a copy of the French version from France. The book Law of Nations had already existed in English prior to the French translation. The Law of Nations is the book that George Washington borrowed and did not return to the library (descendants of George Washington JUST recently gave a contemporaneous copy of the Law of Nations back to that NY Library from which it was borrowed over two centuries ago). Any “overdue fees” were waived.

        3. Speaking of French, let’s suppose France had imposed “natural born Citizen” (nbC) for its presidents after the French Revolution.

          Wouldn’t us foreigners over here tend to think the simplest and least contested interpretation for France for its undefined nbC would be “born on French soil to French citizens”? WHY WOULD ONE THINK OTHERWISE AND RUN TO LAWYERS TO CONFUSE US OTHERWISE?

          Where would anyone get the idea that France allows its nbC-presidents to be born in Canada? Or French presidential fathers were always intended since the French Revolution to be briefly visa-visiting foreign-diplomat-like sperm donors from Kenya who were never French citizens and never owned any property in France before France soon deported them for lewd propositioning behavior among its young French girls?

          In other words, any concocted ideas for nbC that are extraneous to the simplest and least contestable tribal, “born and raised in France among French citizens to French-citizen-parents”, are just that, EXTRANEOUS and down-right fraudulent, don’t you think?

      2. Vattel did NOT write the Law of Nations. Vattel translated the Law of Nations from Latin to French. In French: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de Parents Citoyens”.

        In English : The NATURALS or Indigenous ARE those born IN a country to parents who are BOTH citizens.

    1. Thank you Robert Laity for your diligence in holding feet to the fire.
      The Lord God lead the way, for the cause of liberty and truth is of him.
      Ed Sunderland is right over the target. Great aim.
      Thank you Sharon and The Post & Email for helping to shine the light
      to dispel the darkness of Barack Hussein Obama’s ongoing election fraud from 2008 and 2012.
      “The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.” Proverbs 12:19 KJB

      1. You are welcome. I am one of those people who meant it when I swore an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. In my case I swore such an oath FOUR different times. When I joined the Navy. When I got hired as an employee of the U.S. Government. When I became a Constitutional Officer of the State of NY and when I became a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Being the founder and President of Society for the Preservation of our American Republic also makes it my business to defend our liberties.

        ALL Citizens of the US have a civic duty to defend the United States from its enemies, foreign and/or domestic.

  5. The Constitution is just way too difficult to understand. It would take at least a 2nd or even possibly a 3rd grade education in ENGLISH !!! “Lawyer-speak” may be taught at Harvard or Yale, but the Constitution was written in simple language.

      1. Does California governor have to a natural born citizen?

        Why is Schwarzenegger included in Laity’s letter?

        I wonder what Cruz and Rubio will think.

        1. Ms. Rondeau,

          Why is Schwarzenegger’s name on the letter?

          I don’t remember him running for President or Vice-President.

        2. It was always recognized that he was not eligible and that a Constitutional amendment was necessary.

          In fact in July, 2003, Senator Hatch tried to get the natural born citizen requirement removed by amendment. That amendment is often referred to as the Arnold Amendment.

        3. I sued Cruz and Rubio in 2016 because they are not eligible to be President. What they “will think” about my letter, in view of my having previously notified them that they are not eligible, remains to be seen. Will they have the bald faced audacity to TRY to defraud the electorate AGAIN?

          Are you by any chance RELATED to Ted Cruz?

      2. He isn’t eligible to BE VP or President. He was quite upset about it when Trump got elected. Arnold WANTED to be President. He even tried unsuccessfully to have an amendment to change the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement. Arnold wasn’t even born in the US.

        1. There’s no evidence that Schwarzenegger tried to amend the U.S. Constitution.

          But even if he did, he should be lauded for attempting to change the U.S. Constitution in exactly the manner in which such changes should be made.

    1. Schwarzenegger actively sought a Constitutional Amendment to change the Article II requirement that he be a “Natural Born Citizen” so that he could run for the Presidency. He is NOT eligible.

      1. If he had gotten a Constitutional amendment that allowed naturalized citizens to be President then he would have been eligible.

        There is nothing unconstitutional about a naturalized citizen proposing a constitutional amendment.

        1. Read your link.

          “On previous occasions the governor of California has sidestepped the question, but asked last night on the CBS programme 60 Minutes if he would support an amendment to allow a foreign-born national to be president, Mr Schwarzenegger said: “Yes, absolutely.””

          Arnold was open to being President after a constitutional amendment.

          Sounds like he understands he needs the amendment to be eligible as your link points out.

          Maybe you should take his name off of your letter.