The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Elderberry on August 11, 2019, 01:21:35 pm
-
The Post & Email 8/10/2019
On Friday, New York State citizen and registered voter Robert Laity wrote to Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, who also serves as President of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) based in Washington, DC.
In his three-page letter, Laity expressed concern for the placement of ineligible presidential candidates on state ballots around the country for the 2020 election as well as previous recent elections.
Referring to the previous candidacies of former Louisiana Gov. Piyush (Bobby) Jindal, U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz, and the late Arizona Sen. John McCain, as well as to current presidential candidates Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Senator Kamala Harris, Laity wrote, “It is clear that there is now a clearly delineated pattern of attempted usurpations of our nation’s highest office by people with dual allegiances and citizenship. This must not be allowed to continue.â€
In a recent op-ed, The Post & Email’s Joseph DeMaio said of the “task†of Gabbard prospectively proving her eligibility:
This task arises, of course, because although from all appearances, both of her parents – Carol (née Porter) and Mike Gabbard – were both already U.S citizens on April 12, 1981, Tulsi Gabbard’s birth did not take place within the United States. Rather, it took place in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, American Samoa. As faithful P&E readers also know, under the provisions of § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations – and upon which tome the Founders “continually relied†while drafting the Constitution, including the “natural born Citizen†restriction of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 – in order for one to satisfy the eligibility restriction, not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil.
Harris was born in Oakland, CA in 1964, predating the time when either of her foreign-born, non-U.S.-citizen parents could have resided in the United States long enough to apply for citizenship.
More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/08/10/citizen-contacts-secretaries-of-state-on-natural-born-citizen-issue/ (https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/08/10/citizen-contacts-secretaries-of-state-on-natural-born-citizen-issue/)
-
Mr. Robert Laity is 100% correct and I wish him every success in his efforts here.
-
This will continue to be a problem, not in the sense of this article but in many areas of our society and will only get worse.
We need to make it harder to get here and demand certain standards from anyone seeking citizenship.
-
Response Received on “natural born Citizen†Letter
On Tuesday, August 13, 2019
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/08/13/response-received-on-natural-born-citizen-letter/ (https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/08/13/response-received-on-natural-born-citizen-letter/)
On Saturday, New York State citizen Robert Laity reported that he contacted all 50 Secretaries of State on the matter of presidential eligibility, particularly as it concerns the “natural born Citizen†requirement in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
On Saturday The Post & Email published Laity’s letter to Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, who is also serving as President of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) located in Washington, DC.
The remaining 49 letters were sent by email through the NASS website, to which Laity received a response early Tuesday morning. That response, from Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, reads:
From: Office, SOS
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:06 AM
To: Robert Laity
Subject: Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State’s Office
Thank you for taking the time to contact me; this message is to confirm that I have received your e-mail and am taking the appropriate steps to follow-up.
Your questions, concerns and suggestions are important and depending on the nature of the issue, I may ask one of my colleagues to contact you directly in order to ensure that you receive a timely and informed response.
In the meantime, for news and information on issues directly related to the Department of the Secretary of State, please visit our website at http://www.maine.gov/sos/. (http://www.maine.gov/sos/.)
Best Wishes,
Matthew Dunlap
Secretary of State
More at link.
-
Mr. Robert Laity is 100% correct and I wish him every success in his efforts here.
Why do you believe the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of families they chose as the nation's ambassadors?
-
Why do you believe the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of families they chose as the nation's ambassadors?
Why do you believe I believe that?
-
Why do you believe I believe that?
You seemed to be in agreement with:
not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil
-
post removed
-
You seemed to be in agreement with:
not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil
And U.S. Embassies have always been considered U.S. Soil so far as I know.
-
Enough.
Birtherism is built on a bed of lies, I've told you a thousand times, and if it doesn't stop getting promoted here, I am going to start making this entire board's life a living Hell until it stops. Do y'all understand me, or are you just a bunch of conspiracy-minded retards?
Your opinion is noted @jmyfuller! Fire away!
-
And U.S. Embassies have always been considered U.S. Soil so far as I know.
And the birth must take place in the Embassy, not a local hospital?
-
And the birth must take place in the Embassy, not a local hospital?
The place of residence is the controlling factor I do believe.
-
post removed
-
Why do you believe the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of families they chose as the nation's ambassadors?
Or the children of American military people who happen to be born where their parent was posted (John McCain III was born in the Canal Zone because his father was serving there and had brought his family there). Overseas posting can last for a couple of years, and bring one's family where one is posted is fairly common (e.g. my wife was born to her American parents in a EuroLand country because her father was posted there for a couple of years.
-
Not opinion. Fact. As opposed to your consistent lying. *****.
No! Your opinion only! Now take your own advice and ******
-
The place of residence is the controlling factor I do believe.
You are really adding requirements that are not written down anywhere.
How about the family of US citizens working a temporary job out of country?
I'll make a different, simpler proposal. Natural-born citizen is a citizen born in circumstances that only their birth, makes them a citizen. If further government approval is required, like a naturalization process, then they are not a natural-born citizen.
-
You are really adding requirements that are not written down anywhere.
How about the family of US citizens working a temporary job out of country?
I'll make a different, simpler proposal. Natural-born citizen is a citizen born in circumstances that only their birth, makes them a citizen. If further government approval is required, like a naturalization process, then they are not a natural-born citizen.
There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Here is one particular quote of note:
"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
Further, Here is what the Constitution says:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: Qualifications
Text
"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."
I did not write that. The founders did and they clearly made a distinction between a meer citizen and a natural-born citizen. Further, it is perfectly clear to me that there is no one left alive on this planet today who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and thus only natural-born citizens who have attained the age of 35 years and have resided in this country for 14 years are eligible to run for the office of president of the United States.
-
There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Here is one particular quote of note:
Further, Here is what the Constitution says:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: Qualifications
Text
"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."
I did not write that. The founders did and they clearly made a distinction between a meer citizen and a natural-born citizen. Further, it is perfectly clear to me that there is no one left alive on this planet today who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and thus only natural-born citizens who have attained the age of 35 years and have resided in this country for 14 years are eligible to run for the office of president of the United States.
I disagree. They clearly understood no one could be a Natural-born citizen of the country before the country existed. They had to allow for those already in the country to be.
-
Why do you believe the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of families they chose as the nation's ambassadors?
Children of US diplomats born aboard are considered natural born citizens if their parents are citizens of the USA.
-
I disagree. They clearly understood no one could be a Natural-born citizen of the country before the country existed. They had to allow for those already in the country to be.
You can disagree all you want but SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (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,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll 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.
-
Or the children of American military people who happen to be born where their parent was posted (John McCain III was born in the Canal Zone because his father was serving there and had brought his family there). Overseas posting can last for a couple of years, and bring one's family where one is posted is fairly common (e.g. my wife was born to her American parents in a EuroLand country because her father was posted there for a couple of years.
The Canal Zone was a US territory as such it was considered US soil.
-
Liberals Always attack whenever they can't defend their "feelings".
Stop the threats!
Oh, so now I'm a "liberal" because I don't tolerate bullcrap birtherism and the associated litany of lies, falsehoods and prevarication associated with them. OK, Jimrob. But let's be clear here. The precedents that prove the utter falsehood of pretty much every birther claim, from Chester Arthur through Charles Curtis and even the Marquis de Lafayette, are FACTS. NOT opinions. NOT feelings.
Stone.
Cold.
TRUTH.
The Post & E-Mail is nothing more than a clearinghouse for discredited birthers. It's on the same level as Infowars during the Bush administration when it was peddling the 9/11 conspiracy. To continue to harbor this nonsense as serious commentary and news is an insult to this forum and anyone who seriously believes it ought to be embarrassed, but are probably too ignorant to admit it. (Now that's an opinion.) It belongs in Alternate Realities with the rest of it.
-
Oh, so now I'm a "liberal" because I don't tolerate bullcrap birtherism and the associated litany of lies, falsehoods and prevarication associated with them. OK, Jimrob. But let's be clear here. The precedents that prove the utter falsehood of pretty much every birther claim, from Chester Arthur through Charles Curtis and even the Marquis de Lafayette, are FACTS. NOT opinions. NOT feelings.
Stone.
Cold.
TRUTH.
The Post & E-Mail is nothing more than a clearinghouse for discredited birthers. It's on the same level as Infowars during the Bush administration when it was peddling the 9/11 conspiracy. To continue to harbor this nonsense as serious commentary and news is an insult to this forum and anyone who seriously believes it ought to be embarrassed, but are probably too ignorant to admit it. (Now that's an opinion.) It belongs in Alternate Realities with the rest of it.
:amen:
-
:amen:
Thank you. I know we disagree on some trade-related issues but it's nice to know I'm not alone here on this.
And I apologize for flying off the handle earlier.
-
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.
-
Thank you. I know we disagree on some trade-related issues but it's nice to know I'm not alone here on this.
And I apologize for flying off the handle earlier.
No worries..
But in reality somethings had to be said, and I'm going to be honest. The birther issue is damaging the conservative cause. I just don't get why we are all supporting useless issue that was started by Hillary Clinton (That clue #1 we should have avoided it), which was picked up hucksters like Alan Keyes and others on the right.
We may disagree on trade, but there a lot issues that we agree on. Like the fact that birtherism is a stain on the Conservative movement.
-
Bigun wrote (correctly):
"You can disagree all you want but SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€"
This is why this issue will never be fully clear and decided until a definitive ruling is made by the U.S. Supreme Court, insofar as what specifics are required in order for someone to be a "natural born citizen" (and thus Constitutionally qualified to be president).
The arguments will go on unabated until then.
The only other way will be an amendment to the Constitution that clarifies just what "natural born citizen" is supposed to mean. Perhaps this could be combined with an amendment that removes "birthright citizenship" of aliens (as currently "granted" by the 14th Amendment).
Speaking ONLY for myself:
I don't believe Kamala Harris to be eligible for president under the "natural born citizen" clause.
But then again, I believe Ted Cruz is even LESS eligible.
So there.