Author Topic: Why Does New York State Continue to Misstate the Citizenship Requirement for President?  (Read 487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elderberry

  • News/Opinions Cat MOD
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,594
The Post & Email 6/30/2019

On Friday morning, P&E reader Robert Laity sent an email to the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) and other a number of other parties to reiterate that one of the Board’s stated presidential eligibility requirements is inaccurate.

As he has beginning in 2008, Laity, a New York State resident and registered voter, again reminded the BOE that its stated presidential citizenship requirement, “born a citizen,” is not what appears in the U.S. Constitution.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Referring to two lawsuits he filed challenging the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Laity wrote in an email Friday morning:

In both Laity v NY & Obama and Laity v NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal both the NYBOE and NY State Supreme Court were notified that NY State is in NON-Compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

On the NYBOE official website, NY State continues to misrepresent the federal requirement to be President and Vice President as “born a citizen”. This is NOT the proper term of art. The proper term of art is “Natural Born Citizen” as the State of NY has been informed of several times now since 2008.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/06/30/why-does-new-york-state-continue-to-misstate-the-citizenship-requirement-for-president/
He who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.

Offline Gefn

  • "And though she be but little she is fierce"-Shakespeare
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,483
  • Quos Deus Vult Perdere Prius Dementat
Thanks for posting @Elderberry
G-d bless America. G-d bless us all

Adopt a puppy or kitty from your local shelter

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,220
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Mr. Laty is 100% correct and I sincerely hope he wins!

Offline EdJames

  • Possible TrumpRealist
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,339
Why are they "misstating" it?

Because they want it to be changed....  to be watered down....

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,220
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Why are they "misstating" it?

Because they want it to be changed....  to be watered down....

As someone I know has been known to say "EXACTAMUNDO!!!"

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,595
    • Fullervision
 :yawn2:

Here come the birthers and their made-up definitions again.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. It may just be that I have two enemies.

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
Why?  Because they are taking the position that the ill-defined "natural born citizen" should be regarded as analogous to Blackstone's "natural subjects", rather than Vattel's "natives", under which view of its meaning, they are not misstating the requirements to be President and Vice-President, but simply stating them in clearer terms.
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,220
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Why?  Because they are taking the position that the ill-defined "natural born citizen" should be regarded as analogous to Blackstone's "natural subjects", rather than Vattel's "natives", under which view of its meaning, they are not misstating the requirements to be President and Vice-President, but simply stating them in clearer terms.

England has Kings as Queens and the order of succession is well known. Not so in the USA. The founders thoroughly understood the issue and relied on Vattel's definition.

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
England has Kings as Queens and the order of succession is well known. Not so in the USA. The founders thoroughly understood the issue and relied on Vattel's definition.

I have never seen any evidence that the Founders actually relied on Vattel, rather than on notions existing under the Common Law.  And did you even read what I wrote?  Blackstone was commenting on the Common Law as to who was naturally subject to the Crown, the British analogue of citizenship, not on succession to the throne.  And while the Founders were very clear that after independence the Common Law of these United States was not identical to British Common Law, the basic notions of British Common Law were presuppositions of the Constitution (as for instance in the Constitutions' discussion of habeas corpus).
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline Gefn

  • "And though she be but little she is fierce"-Shakespeare
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,483
  • Quos Deus Vult Perdere Prius Dementat
England has Kings as Queens and the order of succession is well known. Not so in the USA. The founders thoroughly understood the issue and relied on Vattel's definition.

The weird thing is that today we see the Royals like movie stars. All those tabloids in the supermarket serve stories by the dozens on them. And what of course they are wearing.

 
G-d bless America. G-d bless us all

Adopt a puppy or kitty from your local shelter

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
The weird thing is that today we see the Royals like movie stars. All those tabloids in the supermarket serve stories by the dozens on them. And what of course they are wearing.

That's what the gradual evolution of the British (unwritten) constitution turned royalty into:  celebrity harnessed for the purpose of supporting national unity.  The Queen has a little power in the Commonwealth -- when she acts as Head of the Commonwealth she does not have to follow the advice of her government -- and in the event of a really evenly divided hung Parliament gets to decide which party is asked to form a government, but that's about it.  Other than that, it's her and the rest of the Windsors looking good, doing symbolic things and being loved by the populace. 

I've heard a defense of the modern British monarchy, that it allows British voters the freedom to ignore the personality of the prospective PM and focus on policy when voting, since, unlike for us Americans for whom the President is a focus of national unity, the PM is not a focus of national unity, and thus there is no urge to want a PM one likes. 
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf