by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 3, 2021) — On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court posted a denial of a petition to rehear a case it dismissed in June alleging Kamala Harris is not eligible to serve as the nation’s vice president or president.

The plaintiff in the case, Robert C. Laity, believes Harris does not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one of three requirements the Founders placed in Article II of the U.S. Constitution for the office of president.

The ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804 extended presidential requirements to all vice-presidential candidates.

Harris was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to parents who were then citizens of other countries, her mother of India and her father of Jamaica.

Several weeks after the high court declined to hear the case on June 1, Laity acquired what he described as “certified copies” of documents demonstrating that Harris’s father, Donald Jasper Harris, naturalized as a U.S. citizen in September 1981.

Approximately one month prior, the existence of the Harris documentation was suggested by the Twitter account @kamalakancel.

Laity and a number of constitutional attorneys and scholars maintain that in order for a candidate to qualify for the vice-presidency or presidency, his or her parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth, with some maintaining that the parents’ allegiance outweighs the birthplace of the child. For his part, Laity interprets “natural born Citizen” as signifying, “born in the United States to citizen parents.”

It is unknown whether or not Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, naturalized as a U.S. citizen at any time in her life. In 1985, Gopalan Harris required a sponsor to return to the United States after working in Canada for approximately nine years. That sponsor was her then-21-year-old elder daughter, Kamala, who was considered a U.S. citizen by virtue of her birthplace.

In general, over a number of decades the mainstream media and government agencies have conflated the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” such that Americans are told that anyone born in the country, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status and including illegal aliens or those who wish America harm, is a “natural born Citizen.” The difference, they say, is that a “naturalized” citizen born in a foreign country and obtaining U.S. citizenship through official channels is understood not to qualify for the presidency.

Prior to Laity’s appeal to the Supreme Court in April, lower courts ruled Laity lacked “standing” to bring the case without arriving at the underlying constitutional question.

Should the high court deny his petition to rehear, Laity said in May, he has a “Plan B.”

Laity is author of the 2017 publication, “Imposters in the Oval Office.”

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. Wheeler, I have pending cases. Retirement from my paid position does not preclude me from representing Federal Employees. As I have said. I still have clients whose cases before the EEOC and MSPB have not been resolved as yet. You tell Me why it takes so many years to go through these adjudications. One case I had and which I won took (16) years.

  2. 08-28-08- 08-28-21 = 13 YEARS of “natural born Citizen”-FRAUD

    Nancy Pelosi, Obama II+BidenII+Kamala,Too, and all Secretaries of State, et all, since 08-28-08, are all candidates for jailtime justice for allowing FOREIGN-CITIZENS, Obama and Kamala, to enter the highest office of our land when neither of them, nor Canada Cruz, et al, are “from the tribe” natural born sole-U.S. citizens:
    (assuming Biden II is a “natural born Citizen” of sole-U.S.-citizen-parents)
    EXHIBIT B: and
    EXHIBIT D: See NY Delegate John Jay’s inclusion of NY-convention-approved paragraph beginning with, “That no Persons except natural born Citizens…”
    EXHIBIT E: 08-28-08
    EXHIBIT F: Obama II’s natural observable foreign behavior is a direct reflection of Obama II’s foreign invisible thinking >>> >>> Nature Rules, and human nature follows!
    EXHIBIT H from Maricopa County, AZ:
    EXHIBIT J: >>> Obama-Soetoro is naturally a muslim-sympathizer and a muslim-Constitutional-antagonist because of his life-accumulation of muslim-marxist parentage that shaped his natural invisible thinking to behave to treasonously attempt to “funda-mentally transform” our sacred Judeo-Christian Constitutional Republic to a muslim CALIPHATE of HATE.

    As any reasonable person may conclude in reading over the 100+ arguments on this thoughtful P&E article, what we see is a display of each commenter’s life-accumulated sensations of their personal immersion/absorption of sight-sound-smell-taste-touch INFLUENCES.

    We are all pawns of Nature, from our winning The Race of the Sperms to the end of our journey within the living Human Race, the only thing we humans will ever naturally control is our INVISBLE THINKING, since everything else is the universe is God-created, God-provided and Nature-sustained.

    Why do I seem to be like-minded with the comments expressed herein by Robert Laity and Gary Wilmot and Sharon Rondeau, yet I am defensive and scoff at the comments from William Wheeler…even though I have never met any of these life-sensitized individuals?
    ANSWER: Because the naturally-acquired life-long accumulation of sight-sound-smell-taste-touch sensations of Laity, Wilmot and Rondeau are, apparently, similar to my own life-accumulated intake of sine-waved brain-stimulations.

    Nature Rules, and men follow!

    If I were raised within William Wheeler’s life circumstances, I would likely be cheering him on and blasting The P&E for publishing such thoughts as one’s parentage, and one’s childhood circumstances and one’s parents’ citizenships have anything substantive to do do with anyone’s eventual adult presidential behavior.

    Regardless on one’s verbal statements/arguments, or one’s writings or one’s media-conjured-up life narrative and media-glossed-over life-images (= Obama+Kamala), ONE’S NATURAL BEHAVIOR IS A DIRECT REFLECTION ON ONE’S NATURAL ACCUMULATED-LIFE-SENSITIZED INVISIBLE THINKING.

    John Jay’s life circumstances led him to propose the “natural born Citizen” qualifier for the highest officeholders of his/our land, to attempt, at least, to help ensure that the NATURAL THINKING and, subsequently, the NATURAL BEHAVIOR of any president would never devolve to an accumulated-life-sensitized foreigner-thinker, but, rather, be an America-first-thinker “from within the United States citizen-tribe”, from womb to tomb.

    Because Nature Rules, and human nature follows.

    THANK YOU, P&E staff, for harping EVERYDAY on this indisputable NATURAL OBSERVATION OF REALITY (= “natural born Citizen”) since 08-28-09!

  3. I have recently filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice Professional Conduct Office and Inspector General of the D.O.J. The complaint is against “Each and every U.S. Attorney General since Eric Holder and including Merrick Garland”. The Charge: Dereliction of duty and Non-feasance in Office for not defending the integrity of the Office of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency from usurpations under the DC Code.

    1. It is difficult to see what action Mr. Laity believes a U.S. Attorney General should have taken. Eric Holder was appointed by President Obama when already in office, and no doubt satisfied himself the president was legitimately installed. His predecessor (Wikipedia informs me that was Michael Mukasey) presumably satisfied himself that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, therefore eligible, as that was the subject of some discussion at the time.

      We know that Mr. Laity holds to the “two citizen parents” theory, but we also know that is not the mainstream interpretation of “natural born citizen”. We can be certain the DOJ endorses the mainstream view, so that there was no threat to “the integrity of the Office” so no need for the AG to take any action.

      1. My view of what an NBC is is NOT a “theory”. It is a long established legal precept of international law that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court several times. It is an immutable and incontrovertible fact.

        1. While you have presented your beliefs about the natural-born citizen to courts, no court has agreed with you.

          Courts that have ruled on the meaning of natural-born citizen ruled in a manner inconsistent with your beliefs.

        2. “It is an immutable and incontrovertible fact” for whose validity its proponents have never produced any evidence. If it is so incontrovertible and so immutable, surely we can be shown some document, perhaps a legal dictionary, or an encyclopedia entry, maybe a Congress or DOJ booklet for schools introducing the Constitution, that sets out in plain English what “natural born” means for presidential eligibility?

    2. You appear to be backtracking here. Who are some of the “PLAN B” names we can contact to encourage them to move the Constitutional Amendment forward? You mentioned working with a Congressman for months moving it forward; it’ll be public record when the Amendment bill is filed. So do you have dozens on board? Hundreds?

      There’s no such thing as “US DOJ Professional Conduct Office”. Do you mean the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)? That only covers current employees. As for the DOJ OIG, “The Investigations Division investigates alleged violations of fraud, abuse and integrity laws that govern DOJ employees, operations, grantees and contractors.” Orders were from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. The AGs were implementing policy from above.

      Neither of these organizations will be responsive to your correspondence because they aren’t relevant to their charters and missions.

      If you’ll share your progress with “PLAN B” with all the P&E readers, that’s a much better project to keep everyone posted on. Everyone will appreciate knowing more. If there’s a Constitutional Convention to further define the words you’d like, that would be a huge success. But random letters to government agencies are unlikely to get more than a form letter response.

      1. “A rose by any other name still smells as sweet”- Wm. Shakespeare. “Professional Responsibility” or “Professional Conduct” notwithstanding, I filed a legitimate citizen complaint with the USDOJ. The US Attorney General is NOT above the law. I know how to file federal complaints. I have done so for almost five decades. Filing such complaints was part and parcel of my elected position as a Federal Union official and employee representative. I STILL have pending cases, even though I retired in 2003. My DOJ complaint is not a “random letter”. I filed complaints against these respondents YEARS ago, while they were IN office. My current charges are merely a follow-up reiteration of their non-feasance in office which NOW includes Merrick Garland, et al.

  4. To Bill Wheeler, See Article 1, Sec. 8: “The congress shall have power to DEFINE and PUNISH offenses against the Law of Nations”. Treating people as Natural Born Citizens who aren’t Natural Born Citizens is an offense against the Law of Nations. The term of art “Natural Born Citizen” IS defined in the Law of Nations. “One born in a country to citizen parents”. Ignoring that definition IS an “Offense” against the Law of Nations. Furthermore, Congress DELEGATED this power to punish offenses with regard to non-NBC persons who usurp the Vice-Presidency, the Presidency or any other public office in DC. They enacted the DC Code expressly delegating the DC Courts the authority to adjudicate quo warranto issues pertaining to ANY public official who serves within the District.

    1. Courts have rejected the argument that Vattel had any influence on the natural-born-citizen clause.

      The D.C. courts that heard your case rejected your argument that you had standing to challenge the vice president’s eligibility.

        1. Courts’ handing down rulings that acknowledge, discuss, and then reject parties’ arguments is literally the opposite of extrajudicial.

      1. It takes a ‘special’ type of person who celebrates those individuals in authority who abuse and violate provisions of the U.S. Constitution using the fiat freedom of “no standing” or who refuse to review the details of the plaintiff.

        Some day, that ‘special’ person will have to explain to and convince the world why the Founding Framers had the wisdom to specify that congressional candidates only need to be a “citizen”; whereas, presidential/vice presidential candidates must be a “natural born Citizen”.

        Additionally, that ‘special’ person needs to convince the world why all existing (active) U.S. citizenship/naturalization laws are devoid of the phrase “natural born”. i.e., If all persons born in the U.S. (to none or even one U.S. citizen parent) or all persons born overseas to one or even two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born Citizen, why not state so in U.S. citizenship/naturalization laws. I know why; I just enjoy hearing the kindergarten obfuscation reply comments from ‘special’ people.

        1. I don’t know who this special person might be, but the courts repeatedly have explained their rulings on both standing and the meaning of natural born citizen. No celebration required to acknowledge these rulings, or that there’s no serious disagreement with them.

          Nor would this special person have to explain (to the world, or anyone else) the Framers’ intent when the courts’ rulings speak for themselves.

          Nor would this special person have to explain Congress’ inaction, unless this special person is the spokesperson for Congress.

          This special person, like much of the rest of the world, probably is content with the status quo, and will let reality do the speaking.

    1. “Influence” is a vague term.

      A person could be born in the United States to at least one non-citizen parent, and due to the citizenship laws of a non-citizen parent’s country, also be a citizen of a parent’s country.

      But if this person with dual (or possibly more) citizenship never visits these other countries bestowing citizenship, in no sense have these countries “influenced” this person. This person didn’t grow up there, and there’s no practical way these other countries could enforce their laws inside the United States. And if this person was estranged from the parent from another country, the parent would not have taught this person about this other country.

      In no meaningful sense of the word has this person been “influenced” by another country.

      1. I’m not going to waste my time with this pathetic, lame excuse. Just look at Harris’ parents, their politics, their background, their travel and any objective analysis can see plenty of evidence of cultural and political influences on Harris who by law can lay actually lay claim to Jamaican citizenship and special privileges in India. Common sense would tell you that is not a person without cultural biases and foreign allegiances. It is certainly not a person the Founding Fathers envisioned occupying the White House and commanding the US military. Too many anti-American Obama sycophants that comment on the P & E. They bring nothing to the table but disinformation, propaganda and empty-headed anti-American blather. The Constitution matters.

        1. No one with any common sense can argue that the founders would countenance the admission of those who are born BRITISH Subjects. BOTH of Kamala Harris’s parents WERE British Subjects under the provisions of the British Nationality Act, as WAS Kamala Harris when she was born. US courts have consistently proffered British Common Law to justify their spurious and specious arguments that Those born under the auspices of the King were Natural born subjects and then misapply British Law to the US. The USA has its OWN common law TOTALLY severed from British precedent or law. Insofar as the US recognizes the Law of Nations, the British Nationality Act is recognized as making Harris and her parents BRITS by Birth. Her parents as citizens of British Commonwealth nations and Kamala by virtue of being their British offspring. Kamala Harris is naturalized and NOT an NBC.

        2. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained the terms in the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law.

          There’s no evidence that Harris’ parents or Harris herself were British subjects at the time of her birth.

          There’s no evidence that Harris ever naturalized; she has been a natural-born citizen of the United States since her birth in the United States.

      2. Mr. Wheeler:

        Well you need to look up the definition of the term “influence”.

        Was the “dual citizen” at birth Barack Obama influenced by his non-U.S. Citizen foreign father?

        What is your understanding of the meaning of the word “Citizen” of a country?

        1. “Was the “dual citizen” at birth Barack Obama influenced by his non-U.S. Citizen foreign father?”

          The father he only met once in his life for about 2 weeks?

          Wouldn’t his grandparents have had a stronger influence on him?

          Btw, James Madison said place of birth is the more certain criteria for allegiance.

        2. Dennis Becker:
          You must be kidding. You mean the father that Barack Obama wrote about and dreamed about and titled his book about that influence, i.e., “Dreams From My Father”. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama was not influenced by his father has never read that book and/or is not really being intellectually honest.

        3. There’s a difference between whether Obama’s father and Obama’s father’s citizenship influenced him.

          And there’s no evidence Obama’s father’s citizenship impacted the United States’ relationship with Kenya, Africa more generally, or any other foreign state.

      3. A “citizen” is a member of a state, and different states have different requirements as to who is (or may become) a citizen. “Influence” means the capability to affect, but many things have the capacity to affect another, and the capacity to affect is different from actually affecting.

        There is no evidence that Harris, a citizen (and natural-b0rn citizen) of the United States, has shown any favoritism toward Jamaica or India. There’s no evidence that Jamaica or India are affecting her decisions as the U.S. Vice President in any way.

        Similarly, there’s no evidence that Obama, also a citizen (and natural-b0rn citizen) of the United States, favored Kenya or let Kenya affect his decisions as the U.S. President.

        1. Citizenship in any state, nation, or country comes with attendant responsibility and requirements in return for the protection and advantages of having citizenship in said states, nations, or countries. A “citizen” is a person owing loyalty and allegiance to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state, nation, or country. A dual-citizen thus owes loyalty and allegiance to two states, nations, or countries. That is what the “natural born Citizen” clause was put into the presidential eligibility clause to prevent, the “foreign influence” and potential conflict of interests caused by having birth allegiance to two states, nations, or countries. A dual-Citizen at birth can never be a “natural born Citizen” of any state, nation, or country. See this paper for more on the subject of “natural born Citizen” and source of how it got put into the Constitution and why:

          I asked Mr. Wheeler and he did not answer: Was the “dual citizen” at birth Barack Obama influenced by his non-U.S. Citizen foreign father?

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) —

        2. So at least now Mr. Wheeler recognized that being born a dual-Citizen gives the two nations the “capacity to effect” their respective Citizen as part of the definition of “influence”. John Jay wrote George Washington to put the “natural born Citizen” requirement into the presidential eligibility clause as a “strong check” against the foreign influence due to dual-citizenship status at birth, and the attendant “capacity to effect” said person by virtue of their claim for their allegiance and loyalty in return for the protection of Citizenship at birth. If one is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, i.e., a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country when their child is born, then the person will be most likely at birth be born a dual-Citizen, such as was the case Obama and Harris. With dual-Citizenship (in Obama and Harris’ cases … U.S. and another country) the other foreign nation has the “capacity to affect” i.e., exert foreign influence on the Citizen of their nation or country. That capacity and potential for foreign influence is exactly what John Jay and George Washington desired to avoid and minimize via the “strong check” when they had the “natural born Citizen” term added to the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution. For more see:

        3. Requiring the president and vice-president to be U.S. citizens at birth is consistent with Jay’s desire for a strong check against foreign influence. But there’s no evidence that Jay intended to prohibit dual citizenship. Moreover, Jay was not a Framer, so his intent isn’t that relevant; Jay had no authority to add anything to the U.S. Constitution.

          Regardless, no court has said that the natural-born-citizen clause was intended to prevent dual citizenship, or that dual citizens cannot also be natural-born citizens. Rather, the courts have endorsed the eligibility of presidential candidates with dual citizenship, such as Cruz.

          Cruz, for example, expressed no loyalty or allegiance to Canada, and Canada had no practical method to coerce Cruz’s loyalty and allegiance. The phantom of Cruz’s divided loyalties and allegiances was entirely illusory.

          And your question was answered: there’s no evidence that Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship affected President Obama’s decisions while in that office.

        4. What is being spewed here by Wheeler, Wilson, Becker, and other OBOTS and HBOTS regarding the original meaning, understanding, and intent of the founders and framers regarding the “natural born Citizen” term in the “presidential eligibility” clause, Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution, is faulty logic and sophistry.


          For the facts about the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution see: — and — — and —

        5. Every court that considered Obama’s eligibility on the merits ruled he was a natural-born citizen.

          No attorney could be bothered to file an eligibility challenge against Harris.

      4. You have got to love Mr. Wheeler’s arguments when he ventures out of his safe zone of just cheerleading from the sidelines.

        Now he espouses a notion of a natural born citizen that can mutate as one grows old. He explains that if a foreign county or foreign parent has not influenced a child as he or she matures, then that child can be a natural born citizen even if that child was born with multiple allegiances. Mr. Wheeler fails to realize that the clause is “natural born citizen.” Any common-sense interpretation of that clause tells us that the status is determined at birth and not later in life. So, Mr. Wheeler’s theory about a child being born with multiple allegiances but not being influenced by foreign countries or a foreign parent as he or she grows old and therefore being a natural born citizen is simply ludicrous.

        1. Never did I say that being a natural-born citizen can mutate. Literally no one has suggested that the status of being natural-born citizen can be acquired at any time after birth.

          If you read again, but closer this time for context, you’ll see that I actually said the concept of dual citizenship necessarily being a disqualifying influence is neither logical nor supported by empirical evidence.

        2. “For a person who is by and at birth a citizen of two or more countries, does that person have foreign influence on them at and by birth?” asks Mr. Kerchner. Mr. Apuzzo makes a similar point.

          At the time of birth, the only person who “influences” the citizen is his mother who gives him milk. And of course the wider family and so on.
          So any person acquires “influence” or “allegiance” later in life than birth. In any event, the debate is over the meaning of “natural born citizen” not about influence or allegiance.

          Even if the Laity definition were to prevail, a citizen with two citizen parents can still be “influenced” by foreign connections they may have. Donald Trump’s mother was born a British citizen (“subject” if you prefer) but was a U.S. citizen before his birth. Someone in his position could still feel an allegiance to his “mother” country. Donald could still think himself part- Scottish.

          It is for the voters to decide whether a candidate is the right man or woman to be U.S. President. If you feel Barack Obama is not American enough, vote for someone else in the primary or in the general. The Constitution defines who is eligible to run: the voters do the rest.

  5. Response from Joseph DeMaio to William Wheeler’s 2:54 p.m. comment:
    William Wheeler, in response to Mr. Apuzzo, says: “Here’s two,” citing the comically absurd Masin and Pelligrini cut-‘n-paste decisions, both of which are addressed – and, respectfully, dismantled – here: The Decisions in Elliott v. Cruz and Williams v. Cruz, Conclusion – The Post & Email ( Some folks just never learn…, or care to learn.

    1. Judge Pelligrini’s decision was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, without dissent. Review of that was then requested in the U.S. Supreme Court, and certiorari was denied, again without dissent. So that’s 17 judges who did not express disagreement with Cruz’s argument that he was a natural-born citizen.

      I don’t recall the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s or the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of an editorial.

  6. William Wheeler cheerleads that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. His chant has no basis in law or logic.

    Let us consider how Senator Ted Cruz became a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. That analysis holds the key to answering the question of whether he is an Article II natural born citizen.

    The original Constitution uses the words “natural born citizen” and “citizen” of the United States. It does not define those words. So, under what law does someone become a natural born citizen. That law is the national common law with which the Framers were familiar at the time they drafted and adopted the Constitution. On matters of citizenship, they looked to the common law that sprung from the law of nations which provided that a natural born citizen was a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”). Vattel’s law of nations definition of a natural born citizen was incorporated into American common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. See also Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) (“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.). Cruz is not a natural born citizen under that common law. Cruz was born in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban) and to a U.S. citizen mother. Cruz therefore cannot satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of a natural born citizen.

    The Constitution at the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen” of the United States. It does not mention nor define a “natural born citizen.” That Amendment is the product of Congress exercising its power to amend the Constitution and it so did on matters of naturalization. Hence, through the Amendment Congress did nothing more than constitutionalize a naturalization act. To benefit from that Amendment and acquire U.S. citizenship “at birth,” one must be born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Even if the Amendment gave anyone the status of a natural born citizen which it does not, Cruz was born in Canada and so he cannot be a citizen of the United States under that provision. There is no other Constitutional provision making Cruz a citizen of the United States at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.

    So how did Cruz become a citizen of the United States when he was born in 1970? Apart from the power to amend the Constitution, the Constitution in matters of citizenship gives Congress the power to naturalize and nothing more. That is not a power to make anyone a natural born citizen. It has exercised that power starting in 1790. Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

    So, there you have it. Cruz is not a natural born citizen under our national common law because he was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents. He is not even a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not born in the United States. Rather, he is a beneficiary of Congress’s naturalization power exercised through the Immigration Act of 1952 which naturalized him to be a United States citizen “at birth.” Needing Congress to naturalize him, Cruz is not, nor can he be a natural born citizen. Indeed, Cruz would be an alien if it were not for Congress’s naturalization Act which made him a United States citizen. Being neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, Cruz is not eligible to be President.

    1. That argument failed you raised it in the Pennsylvania and New Jersey courts.

      Observing that Cruz won every eligibility challenge filed against him is hardly cheerleading for him.

        1. William Wheeler,

          Seeing that you are not capable of making your own arguments which defend your position, let me ask you two questions that I believe you should be able to answer:

          1. What was the Framers’ purpose for requiring future presidents to be natural born citizens of the United States and not just citizens of the United States?

          2. Can Congress make one a natural born citizen of the United States? If yes, how?

        2. Not capable of and choosing not to are different, as I know my opinion is irrelevant. Whereas the courts’ rulings are controlling and paramount.

          It is unsurprising that you don’t know this, but many commentators noted the clause was intended as security against foreign influence.

          As taught in high-school civics classes, absent express constitutional authorization, Congress cannot explicitly define or interpret a term in the U.S. Constitution. But Congress can initiate proceedings to amend the U.S. Constitution, which could include redefining its terms. (This is Laity’s so-called Plan B.)

        3. Is that the manner in which you would answer your high school teacher? You are so full of yourself.

          Your reverence for the courts is so phony. I’m sure if you did not agree with what the court said you would give us your opinion.

          In any event, thank you for your incomplete answers which alone demonstrate that Ted Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen. You did not explain why the Framers chose natural born citizen of the United States over citizen of the United States for future presidents.

        4. Good thing I wasn’t addressing any of my high-school teachers.

          Every court that considered Cruz’s eligibility ruled in his favor; that makes him so. Unlike some, I am not so full of myself as to believe my beliefs supersede courts’ rulings.

          Since you missed it the first time: Many commentators noted the Framers included the natural-born-citizen clause as security against foreign influence.

        5. “You did not explain why the Framers chose natural born citizen of the United States over citizen of the United States for future presidents.”

          Wait, didn’t Chief Justice Fuller in re. Lockwood say that Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States?

          “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this Court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution as since”

          And didn’t Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark also say she was a citizen of the United States?

          “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote”

        6. “She was a natural born citizen and therefore had to be a citizen.”

          Both Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Gray said the ruling in the Minor case was that she was a citizen of the United States not that she was a natural born citizen of the United States.

          When Justice Gray ruled Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States that did not mean Wong wasn’t a natural born citizen.

          In fact Chief Justice Fuller assumed the ruling made Wong a natural born citizen. So did the US Government. So did William Damron Guthrie who wrote about the case in 1898.

          And so did the Court of Appeals of Indiana in the Ankeny v Daniels decision.

          And all the dozen or so courts that recently ruled on President Obama’s eligibility.

          Even the late Professor Titus said the Supreme Court would someday have to chose between Justice Gray or Chief Justice Fuller in deciding the meaning of the term natural born citizen.

      1. Wheeler your ignorance is breath-taking. Prior to 1934, Cruz under the same circumstances as his 1970 birth would not have even been an American citizen period. His mother could not have transferred her American citizenship to little Rafael under any circumstance. It was against the law! What changed? Congress liberalized the law so that mothers could convey American citizenship to their foreign born child in addition to the father. That’s it. A statute was enacted by Congress. Did you hear me? A statute. The Constitution was not changed or amended. The statute did not convey NATURAL BORN citizenship to Cruz. It merely said that now the American mother could effectively convey her citizenship to her foreign born child. That’s it! Time to educate yourself Wheeler and stop spreading misinformation and your erroneous take on what is clearly a load of BS. Open your eyes and see how the left is systematically destroying the country. Presidential eligibility is just one prong of this anti-American, anti-Constitution effort. Your comments are purposely devisive and/or ill-informed. Educate yourself and stop all the blather. Absent an intelligent, fact-based argument, you are as Mario stated…merely a troll.

        1. You are correct that Congress did not change or amend the U.S. Constitution’s meaning of natural-born citizen.

          But, as the courts have explained, those who are citizens at birth are natural-born citizens.

          And the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to define who a citizen is (provided that definition does not violate the U.S. Constitution).

          So, as the U.S. Constitution permits, Congress enlarged the pool of people who are U.S. citizens at birth, which had the effect of also expanding the pool of people who are natural-born citizens.

          And indeed Cruz was a beneficiary of that change.

  7. The courts have been fully bought off by Chinese and Demonic $$$ of course they’re not going to do their job. They owe their souls to the company store. Execute ALL Traitors !!

  8. Business as usual in this era of corrupt courts and activist judges. Shame on the USSC for not settling this issue on behalf of all Americans.

    1. Agree! And shame on politicians for failing to adhere to the constitution thus cheating citizens in this country of true qualified candidates. This kind of constitutional disrespect deserves an answer. Now, the only answer to me is to return to 2008 with the fraudulent election of Barack Obama and start there dismantling our corrupt government!

  9. harris IS NOT ELIGIBLE, and since when do citizen not have “standing” to raise that, or any, question about the validity of candidates. They don’t want to face it because they know she isn’t eligible but find it easier to bow to the new world order!!!!!!!!!!

    1. The federal courts repeatedly have explained they have limited jurisdiction.

      The very first eligibility lawsuit against Obama (filed by Philip Berg) was dismissed for lack of standing nearly 13 years ago. Nothing in the law has changed since then.

      1. In the case of ineligible candidates or office holders in DC, the DC courts have EXPRESS jurisdiction to address Quo Warranto issues under the DC Code. The DC Courts HAVE jurisdiction under federal law. They failed to use that authority. It was in the discretion of the court to grant me standing since the USAG declined. The courts did not want to address this hot potato.

  10. Even my representatives (Texas) cannot answer the question as to whether this issue has been resolved. One office had the audacity to tell me (on the phone) that they had not heard about this. To date, I have not received any responses to my inquiry. I guess we’re going to wait until we HAVE to know if kamela is legally qualified.

    1. Laity has already indicated in comments here that “Plan B” is for him to contact members of Congress and ask that they propose a Constitutional amendment that would define the term “natural born citizen” to include a requirement for two citizen parents, a requirement that does not presently exist. There is no evidence that such an amendment would have any support at all in Congress.

    2. Plan B started in June. I have so far contacted ALL (100) US Senators by letter and (84) Congress members, including all of the NY delegation of (27) US Congress members seeking the introduction of a Constitutional Amendment defining “Natural Born Citizen” as “one born in the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves”. I intend to send my letter to every Congressman and Senator. After that is done I plan on following up on the letter by continuing to advocate for this very needed clarification of Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5.

  11. Which government agencies have conflated citizen and natural born citizen? The terms have similar meanings, but who has confused the two?

        1. What they did is worse. They deliberately obfuscated the facts by leaving out pertinent and relevant information and the lying about it. The courts that adjudicated my case “evaded” and flouted the DC Code. That’s judicial misconduct and nonfeasance in office.

        2. The belief that the CRS is wrong about the law isn’t widely held. The CRS’ beliefs about the natural born citizen clause are consistent with the courts’ rulings in eligibility cases.

          The courts that actually heard your cases explained why they disagreed with your beliefs about the D.C. Code.

          Judges applying the law to cases before them is the opposite of misconduct and nonfeasance.

      1. As I read the 2019 DeMaio piece, the CRS is actually conflating “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” with natural born citizen.

        But so did the US Government in the 1898 case of US v Wong Kim Ark. And Chief Justice Fuller in his dissenting opinion in that case.

        In fact so did Congressman Hillhouse in the 1795 congressional debates over Congressman Giles’ amendment to the Naturalization Act.

        1. The Constitution expressly treats “citizen” of the United States and “natural born citizen” of the United States materially different. Hence, it would have been nonsensical for Wong Kim Ark or anyone else to conflate the two.

          On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark decided the sole question of whether those born in the United States to alien parents who are permanently domiciled and residing there (not military invaders or diplomats) are born subject to its jurisdiction and therefore “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not decide nor did it have to decide whether Wong was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States as originally conceived by the Framers in the original Constitution. Hence, Wong Kim Ark answered that single question and held that Wong was a citizen of the United States. It did not hold that he was an Article II natural born citizen. No conflating there.

        2. Exactly: The U.S. Supreme Court did not conflate citizen and natural-born citizen.

          But the question remains: which government agency allegedly did?

        3. I guess I should have said “CRS is actually equating “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” with natural born citizen.”

          “It did not hold that he was an Article II natural born citizen.”

          And yet the US Government prior to Justice Gray’s ruling said a decision in Wong’s favor would make him eligible to be President. And Chief Justice Fuller in his dissenting opinion said the same thing.

    1. As authorized by the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to grant or bestow anyone a statutory U.S. citizen via positive law, but they do not have the authority to make anyone a natural born Citizen. To prove that, you will not find the phrase “natural born Citizen” in any existing U.S. laws. That phrase no longer appeared in U.S. laws after 1795.
      You’ll certainly find the phrase “natural born Citizen in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and you’ll not find that phrase in the 14th Amendment.

      A natural born Citizen is a citizen through natural law – born in the country to two parents who are already citizens of THAT country. Hard pressed for Congress to whip-up that recipe.

      1. Regardless of whether that is accurate, it does not show that any government agency conflated citizens and natural-born citizens.

    2. Anyone who claims that a “Citizen” is eligible to be President and/or VP has conflated the term of art “citizen” with “Natural born citizen”. They do NOT have “similar meanings”.

      1. No one here has claimed that citizens are eligible to be the president or vice president.

        The meanings of citizen and natural-born citizen are similar, as many citizens are also natural-born citizens. Nixon, for example, served as both as a member of Congress and as president, which was permissible because he was both a citizen and natural-born citizen.

        But citizen and natural-born citizen do not have identical meanings. And there’s still no indication which government agency ever claimed they did mean the same thing.

        1. “All natural born citizens are citizens but not all citizens are natural born citizens.”

          And the citizens who are not natural born citizens are naturalized citizens.

  12. What must be emphasized and made clear to your readers is that the D.C. Federal District Court and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled only on the issue of standing. They did not reach the merits of the definition of an Article II natural born citizen. Hence, standing was the only issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    So, we still do not know how the Supreme Court would rule should a plaintiff with standing bring his or her natural born citizen case to that court.

      1. First, in the case of Carmon Elliott v. Ted Cruz, the U.S. Supreme Court denied my Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Such denial is not a ruling on the merits.

        Second, Cruz was born in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban) and to a U.S. citizen mother. Cruz therefore cannot satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Being neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, Cruz is not eligible to be President.

        1. First, Elliott did have standing in the lower courts and received a decision on the merits. We know how the U.S. Supreme Court would rule should a plaintiff with standing bring his or her natural born citizen case to that court: It denied certiorari. If a plaintiff with standing was denied certiorari, it is unsurprising a plaintiff without standing also was denied certiorari.

          Second, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, as did every other court that heard eligibility challenges about Cruz.

      2. The requirement that an NBC be born in the US to two US citizen parents certainly DOES “presently exist”. There are no less then (7) US Supreme Court precedents that define NBC as one born in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. The powers that be are flouting those precedents.

    1. Would President Trump and Vice President Pence have standing? If they brought the case and won, would they be reinstated in the White House? Seems like another possible way to bring them back…

      1. Why would Biden be removed from the presidency if his vice president was ruled ineligible?

        If the vice presidency is vacant, the president nominates a replacement, who must be confirmed by both chambers of Congress.

        1. Biden is complicit with Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency. Biden was a faux VP to a faux President. Now Biden has compounded his treason by having nominated HIS faux VP Kamala Harris. Traitors are prohibited from holding “Any office under the US”. Furthermore, Pelosi being also complicit with Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency is equally encumbered from ever being President or from even holding her present office.

        2. No court has ruled that Biden or Pelosi are traitors. Nor did Congress impeach Biden. There’s been no motion to expel Pelosi on this basis.

    2. I’m pretty sure the two Supreme Court Justices appointed by Obama would not risk giving give up their jobs by agreeing Barry is not eligible………… matter what they actually believe……..

        1. On the contrary. Standing is an invented encumbrance “pulled out of thin air” (see my Brief). There are no less then (7) US Supreme Court precedents defining NBC as one born in the US to parents who are both US citizens themselves.

    3. The US Attorney General should have prosecuted the case but declined to do so. That said, there is provision in the law for the court to have granted me standing in such case. I made motion for that after having asked both Barr and Rosen to prosecute and after they declined. The courts continue to “evade” this issue.

    1. KJ Alexander: Amen to that! But, then again, I have no “standing” (other than being an American citizen, military veteran, retired peace officer, taxpayer, etc)! And, like all thoughtful, productive, and patriotic American citizens who have contributed to our country, I have SUFFERED A “HARM!” I guess a BILLIONAIRE like Roberts wouldn’t know anything about that! What more can I say. You can bet that I will find something, though, and that I will say it! Tom Arnold. By the way, my hat’s off to super patriot, fearless, right-thinking and all-around good guy Robert Laity.

      1. After a person has been chosen for president, (or V.P., and sworn-in), example, Obama by John Roberts on 3 different occasions…..I believe there is exactly zero chance that chosen person will ever be found ineligible. There are apparently many ways to avoid finding the person ineligible after they are sworn-in. And, no one who does the swearing in is ever going let themselves be forced to answer the question: “Why did you swear them in, didn’t you know they were not eligible? Too much politics and, “no standing” has to be the ultimate insult to you…..and to others like you………….It’s a way for courts to simply avoid what they don’t want to do…………and it’s an insult that ignores the sacrifices you and Robert Laity and many others have and still are making for America………….

        1. The DC Code Writ of Quo Warranto law provides just that avenue to REMOVE an ineligible occupant (Usurper) of a public office in DC. The DC courts flagrantly FAILED to perform their duty to weed out these imposters.

      2. Thanks Tom. I appreciate your encouragement. We the People MUST defend our Republic. It’s a moral imperative.
        Impersonating a public official as Harris is doing and as Obama has done is a crime under the DC Code. I have a pending complaint against Harris with the DC Police. As you may recall, I also had filed a DC Police information against Obama. There is MASSIVE dereliction of duty and non-feasance in office happening in DC.