U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: “Official Notice of Dispute” Filed with New Hampshire Attorney General on Four Presidential Candidates’ Eligibility (Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum)
Source:
The Post & Email
URL Source: http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11 ... ential-candidates-eligibility/
Published: Nov 14, 2015
Author: Robert Laity
Post Date: 2015-11-14 17:57:34 by Hondo68
Keywords: Party of non Americans, globalists, America-last
Views: 5938
Comments: 26
New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster took office in May 2013. New Hampshire’s attorney general is appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people. (Nov. 13, 2015) — [Editor's Note: The following email was sent to Attorney General Joseph Foster on November 13, 2015.] From: Robert Laity From: Robert Laity Joseph Foster OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE AS TO THE Dear Attorney General Foster, I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a “Natural-Born Citizen” in order to be President under Article II,Sec.1. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett,U.S.Supreme Court 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ruled that: “The Constitution does not,in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that….It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [Emphasis added] who are citizens became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also….these were natural born citizens” The court went on to make reference to the citizenship status of those citizens who derived their citizenship from parents who were not citizens themselves, saying “as to this class there have been doubts”. I am disputing the bona-fides of: Marco Rubio-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. However his Parents were un-naturalized “Permanent resident” Cuban citizens when he was born Ted Cruz-NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban Father and American Mother who may have naturalized as a Canadian. Bobby Jindal- NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to Parents who were un-naturalized Citizens of India at the time of Bob Jindal’s birth. Rick Santorum-NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a Father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick’s birth. See: There is NO “President” Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17//2010/there-is-no-president-obama/ Submitted, Robert C. Laity I understand that State of New Hampshire law provides that this complaint be addressed within (90) days. Date of Complaint is 11/13/2015. Poster Comment: Let the record show that the GOP is pushing a record number of ineligable candidates this time, 4 citizens of the world, America last globalist bankster puppets. 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:17 AM
To: New Hampshire Board of Elections ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: Fw: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:13 AM
To: electionlaw@doj.nh.gov ; Joseph Foster, Attorney General of New Hampshire
Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DISPUTE; AS TO the Non Bona Fides of FOUR Republican Candidates for Presidency of the United States of America
Attorney General
State of New Hampshire
NON BONA FIDES OF FOUR REPUBLICAN
CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT
This is a repeat of what Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and John McCain did in 2008. Both of them are ineligible.
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation of
our American Republic
43 Mosher Drive
Tonawanda, NY 14150
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
Obama put this arguement to rest. Putin could be president and no one could say he was not natural born.
Obama has not put the "Natural Born Citizen" issue to rest. Article II,Sec.1 is still the law. An NBC is one born IN the US to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves. The US Embassy staff in Cuba have recently warned Rubio and Cruz that the Cuban Government does not recognize their US Citizenship and that under Cuban Law Rubio and Cruz are still Cubans subject to Cuban laws. This has wide spread implications should they succeed in usurping the Presidency.
Obama has not put your absurd foreign law NBC argument to rest. The courts have done so with over a century of precedent directly on point and explicitly rejecting the Law of Nations (International Law) argument. International law has no application to the domestic affairs of any single nation. The two citizen parent requirement has no foundation in American citizenship law which is derived from the common law. Citing Minor v. Happersett as legal authority is an absurdity. The Minor court mentioned, but made no ruling on the issue that was not before it. Dr. Orly tried that argument before the very same Ballot Law Commission and wound up admitting in public, [underline added] In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, 21 Fed. R. 905, 909, September 29, 1884, FIELD, Justice. [boldface and underline added] This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice-chancellor SANDFORD in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports. [1 Sandf. 583]. In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1897) [boldface added] Plyler v. Doe, 202 U.S. 202, 211 (1982) [boldface added] - - - [10] Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .... ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' Id., at 687. Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912). - - - - - A Treatise on the Laws Governing the Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States, Washington D.C., John Byrne & Co., 1912, by Clement L. Bouvé, Of the District of Columbia Bar, member of the American Society of International Law. Chapter III: Status; b. Of Aliens Unlawfully Residing in the United States. This point may be considered in connection with the following state of facts: Two aliens, man and wife, both excludable under the immigration laws, succeed in evading the watchfulness of the immigration officials, and in taking up their abode in the United States. After living here for a year a son is born to them. Their unlawful presence becomes known to the immigration officers, and [426] together with their child they are arrested on a warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor ordering their deportation. The facts are admitted. Does the immigration law apply to the son born in this country? Or, in other words, is the child under these conditions born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? It is admitted that at the time of the arrest the parents had come to this country with the intention of making it their home, and actually established their home here in pursuance of their original design. In the words of MR. JUSTICE GRAY, every subject of a foreign country while domiciled here is within the allegiance and protection) and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Does the fact that the parents belong to a class of aliens whose allegiance the United States does not desire and whose entrance into the United States is forbidden by law affect the political status of the child? Obviously not, unless the bare legal prohibition suffices to prevent the parents from acquiring a residence or domicile -- it is immaterial which -- in this country. True, the parents never acquired a municipal status by virtue of or under the immigration law; and they never acquired a lawful domicile in the sense that they were never entitled to enter for the purpose of establishing a home. But the fact remains that they entered this country and proceeded to reside here, until their arrest, in enjoyment of every benefit which the law of the United States confers on persons lawfully resident here, and under the same duty to carry out their correlative obligations. Their temporary allegiance to the United States was complete and gave rise to reciprocal protection on the part of the state, unaffected by the fact that in order to enjoy and exercise the rights and duties incident thereto they had violated the immigration law. This does not mean that an alien may continue in a position of allegiance to the sovereign against that sovereign's will. The state may prevent the existence of the [427] condition, by making it impossible for the alien to acquire a residence within its territorial limits, or, if the condition exists may withdraw its protection by expelling the foreigner. But as certain as is the fact that any such alien resides within the limits of a given sovereign state, just so certain is it that the mutual relation of allegiance and protection exists. To deny this would be to deny the fact of sovereignty itself, and the existence of a sovereign right, which, like the inherent right of an independent member of the family of nations to expel or exclude aliens, cannot, in the words of MR. JUSTICE FIELD, "be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone." - - - - - By Constitution or Statute, all thirteen original states adopted so much of the Common Law of England as did not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. https://archive.org/details/constitutionuni00pascgoog The Constitution of the United States, Defined and Carefully Annotated, by George W. Paschal, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C., W. H. & O.H. Morrison, Law Booksellers, 1868, pp. 168-69. (Emphasis as in original, "Natural Born Citizen" in small caps transliterated to full caps, marginal notes omitted.) On the first Wednesday in December; by act 1st March, 1792. 1 Stat. 239. All the States now choose the electors by the people. See Story's Const. § 1475, 1476. [4.] No person except a natural born citizen, or a i 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. 169. "A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."—Not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption. Attorney-General Bates on Citizenship, 29th November, 1862, p. 8. The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them). It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. Id. We have no middle class or denizens. (1 Sharswood's Bl. Cora. 374.) Id. 9. But Attorney-General Legaré thought there might be. (4 Opin. 147.) Id. The example of a Roman citizen and St. Paul's case and claim thereto cited. Id. Paul's is a leading case of the "Jus Romanum;" it is analogous to our own; it establishes the great protective rights of the citizen, but, like our own national Constitution, it is silent about his powers. Id. 12. "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" recognizes and reaffirms the universal Define principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. Bates on Citizenship, p. 12. Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen. Id. Nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right as between the individual and the government. (2 Kent's Com. Part 4, Lect. 25; 1 Bl. Com. ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Coke's Rep. and (Calvin's Case, 11 State Trials, 70) Doe v. Jones, 4 Term. 300; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 246; Horace Binney, 2 Am. Law, Reorter, 193.) Bates on Citizenship, p. 12.
I believe he demolished any concept of natural born citizen. It no longer exist. If memory serves me it was placed in law because founding fathers feared people with allegiance to England would lead America back to England. The fulfillment of natural born citizen is that of can you spell your name in English. If not we will provide an interpreter for you! ;)
There are no replies to Comment # 23. End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Justified (#2)
#15. To: Robert Laity, Justified (#10)
Obama has not put the "Natural Born Citizen" issue to rest. Article II,Sec.1 is still the law. An NBC is one born IN the US to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves.
In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office.
Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans _brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship.
The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange; and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words, "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]
II (D): Municipal Status (Individual or Communicated);
2. Under the Immigration laws.
(B) Through the Acquisition of American Citizenship
(2.) By Birth in United States Territory.
(b) Children of Aliens Born
b. Of Parents Unlawfully Residing in United States. [425]
168c. On the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November; by act 23d January, 1845. 6 Stat. 121.
#23. To: nolu chan (#15)
Replies to Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]