Posted on 12/01/2011 10:01:50 AM PST by rxsid
"Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause. The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now. But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty. On pg. 48, Maskell states:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt. Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen? The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in. I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.
The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens. His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned. Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.
It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents. But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”
These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion. Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts. The first is not in quotation marks:
of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is
And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.
Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:
“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.
Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.
This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.
Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.
LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS
The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame. But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.
If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
You keep forgetting about Aldo Mario Bellei? He was a "born" citizen, but not a "natural born citizen." His citizenship was stripped from him for failing to meet residency requirements. (Which don't exist for "natural born citizens.")
You are refuted.
PA-RIVER wrote: “The example, the question, is a simple test of rational logic, based on natural law. Not a test of knowledge of national law, or birth certificate procedures.”
My point is that I would follow the real law. Attributing your own preferences to God and nature doesn’t give them any authority outside your own head.
PA-RIVER wrote: “For the child born in Mexico, why is he not a natural born Mexican”?
I don’t know whether he is or isn’t, but I know I don’t get to decide.
PA-RIVER wrote: “If natural born citizen is not a condition at birth, but law, please point to the law that the most eloquent legal minds were referring to when they put this in the constitution.”
According the U.S. Supreme Court: “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” — U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, quoting Smith v. Alabama.
The language of the Constitutions is from English common law, not a Swiss-Prussian legal philosopher writing in French, nor someone’s idea of natural law. English common law.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “You keep forgetting about Aldo Mario Bellei? He was a ‘born’ citizen, but not a ‘natural born citizen.’ His citizenship was stripped from him for failing to meet residency requirements. (Which don’t exist for ‘natural born citizens.’)”
Wrong again. The Court identified the citizens on whom Congress could not impose residency requirements, and it was not natural-born citizens; it was those who were were born or naturalized in the United States.
“Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those ‘born or naturalized in the United States,’ and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.” — Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815 (1971)
To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try cases in your imagination, isn’t it?
http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf
DiogenesLamp wrote: “You keep forgetting about Aldo Mario Bellei? He was a ‘born’ citizen, but not a ‘natural born citizen.’ His citizenship was stripped from him for failing to meet residency requirements. (Which don’t exist for ‘natural born citizens.’)”
Wrong again. The Court identified the citizens on whom Congress could not impose residency requirements, and it was not natural-born citizens; it was those who were were born or naturalized in the United States.
“Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those ‘born or naturalized in the United States,’ and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.” — Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815 (1971)
To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try cases in your imagination, isn’t it?
http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf
“Well lookie here. We have Jack Maskell (and Blade Bryan) telling us all that it ‘has been settled law for more than a century’ and Yet Blade quotes us an example of someone he regards as an authority calling it an ‘Unresolved Engima.’ !!!!”
Sigh. I tried to be so clear. The eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled long ago. That all who received their citizenship upon birth are Article II natural-born citizens, including those born outside the U.S., is a more recent consensus. As of 1968:
“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they be regarded as ‘natural-born’ within the contemplation of the Constitution?” — Charles Gordon, ‘Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma’, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968)
“Unlike delayed, amended or midwife issued birth certificates, the detection of a stolen or counterfeit birth certificate is inherently difficult.
With the exception of detection by highly trained personnel, many counterfeit certificates and sham genuine birth certificates held by imposters go unnoticed.”
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1129-yacob.shtm
The USCIS Adjudicator’s field Manual suggests circumstances which may indicate a false claim to U.S. citizenship:
1. The social security card number does not correspond to the place of issuance.
2. Unavailability of school records
3. No baptismal certificate when of a faith normally baptized
4. No official documents
5. Individual not in the military or registered for the draft
6. Siblings and/or parents born abroad
7. No census records of the individual
8. Delayed birth certificate
9. Illiterate
10. Claims raised abroad
PA: Mr. Ramsay, did you write this, regarding citizenship ?
“as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
DR: Thanks for calling me to the stand. Yes, I did write that.
PA: Where were you when wrote this?
DR: Honestly Sir, I can't Remember. However, George Washington and I were very close friends, and I may have written it while I was a guest at Mt. Vernon. It's been 200 years, so please forgive me. Maybe at Monticello with Tommy.
PA: So your sure you were Friends with Washington? Dropping names, are you?Jefferson?
DR: No doubt in my mind. We were both Presidents. I used to kid George that I was president first, LOL. I used to edit Toms work for him.
PA: So tell us, where the hell do you get this “Natural” crap when you write about “born citizens”?
DR: I would direct you to Wikpedia, so that can understand, they give a good synopsis:
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.[citation needed] Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
PA: But what qualifies you to write that Natural law was used?
DR: I was there, Dude. Ben Franklin and I used to share a copy of Vattels book. For Christ’s sake, I was president before George Washington. The damn book was on my desk. I sat in the same chair, with the rising sun carved into it.
PA: Don't get so defensive. So if we want to understand American citizenship when the country was founded, your saying you would be the authority to turn to?
DR: That's why I wrote the dissertation. So that 200 years later I could become part of the dreadful conspiracy to disqualify Americas first Negro President and adopted Indonesian citizen. Are you serious? WTF?
PA: Well, you are dead white guy, and that's not cool in America today. You may have been there in the thick of it, and you may have been president before George. But Obama has a race card, and you gave it to him.
DR: Look, Barak and I were both born “British Born Subjects”. We have a lot in common. I have nothing against him personally. For Christ sake, I wrote the damn essay almost 200 years before he was born. Cut me some slack dude. Did I have a slave cut my grass? Maybe.
PA: I am debating with this guy, Blade. He said Natural law has nothing to do with Common law or the constitution.
DR: Don't listen to Mr. Fancy Blade. If you look at Supreme court decisions for the last 200 years, you will see Vattel cited numerous times. Then take a look at Minor VS Happersett. It's in black an white. And remember, when we founded the country , we dealt with Tory asses. They were like hemorrhoids, or modern day Democrats. Maybe Mr. Fancy Blade is a Democrat, you don't know, do you?
PA: Well, he could be. I really don't have proof what he is. Any final words?
DR: Well, like I said. I was a president before George, and I sat in that wooden chair with the carving of the sun rising at Independence Hall. Ben always wanted to sit there. Anyway, good luck with the British Born Subject in the Oval Office. George runs to the bathroom and pukes every time I mention Barak! LOL!
Those pretty much all apply to BO.
Oh dear, wikpedia may need to scrub that entry on Natural law ... it’s screwing up everything.
PA: Please be seated, George.
GW: Thanks. And thank God I can finally talk about this shit. I am pissed.
PA: Order in the court!
GW: Don't give me this “Order in The court” crap! Did you see my statue near Zucottie Park? There's flea bag OWS Democrats down there from the park, shitting in front of my statue! WTF are you people doing!!??? This is where I was inaugurated!
PA: I'm very sorry. That statue is a beauty, they shouldn't be peeing around it. But that's not why we called you here today. Your here as a character witness for John Jay and David Ramsay.
GW: OK. Shoot.
PA: Did John Jay write this note, telling you that a president should be a natural born citizen?
GW: Yes, he was always sending me notes. I threw most of them out, but that was a really important one, so I saved it.
PA: How so George. Why was it important?
GW: For history. The people should know that we wanted no one with any foreign ties to be able to access the presidency and our Army.
PA: So a born Dual Citizen, who might call a foreign country his own, would he be presidential Material?
GW: WTF? Have you read his note? I risked my life for this shit? You have to be kidding me!??
PA: OK, OK, a dual citizen is not qualified. I got it. I'm not stupid. Now, this guy, David Ramsay, ...
GW: Don't go there, that SOB always had to have the wooden chair with the Sun rising carved in it. Now that SOB keeps rubbing it into my face that an Anti American POS is trying to run my country into the dirt. I asked him to get me a copy of Vattels book from Independence hall when he was coming to my Inauguration. A simple request. He was passing Philadelphia. But noooo, he tells me to get one from the NY library. He tells everyone he was president before I was. I have to admit it's true, but it pisses me off just the same.
PA: Too much information George. Is the man truthful. Can we rely on his word, written or otherwise?
GW: Look, Dave was there. He was a president and founding member. But there was only one Father of the country. That's why John Jay gave ME the note. Tell Dave I got the note, not him. His dissertation is good, but the note is the nail in the coffin. By the way, Tell Dave that I am printed on all of the new 5 trillion dollar bills that Barak has printed. And speaking of debts, please, someone bring that damn Vattel book back to the NY library for me.
PA: No problem Sir. We took the Vatell book back to the NY library when we found out we had a British born Subject in the oval office. It's the least we could do for you, Sir.
GW. That's it, I'm done! You people piss me off!
PA-RIVER wrote “I call David Ramsay to the witness stand.”
What bad luck for you that all your expert witnesses happen to be dead. What’s more, they’re all talking about a time before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Either than or they’re pretend experts who only started telling the rules that way after they saw that Barack Obama was winning.
If the Constitution is suspended, which would have to be done to suspend the elections mandated therein, then the Supreme Court would not even be consulted. At least postponed past the dates mandated for the ends of Congressional and Presidential terms.
Either that, or *some* justices would be "suspended" and the rest would rubber stamp whatever actions were taken by The Won.
PA: Please have a seat sir.
BO: Can you please make this quick. I have golf outing and Michelle scheduled another vacation on the other side of the planet, again. Getting away from you people is important to us. It helps the kids forget about that nasty country.
PA: I understand. We Americans can be a big pain in the ass to Kings Queens and people like you. So we'll make this brief.
BO: Thanks. I won, I make the rules, so watch your ass.
PA: Understood. First question. Why did you pay lawyers to withhold your BC from the American citizens for three years?
BO: Why? Why should I give a shit what Americans think? I won.
PA: Why? Because in America, the government answers to the people. It's not like Indonesia or Kenya, is it?
BO: Objection! In America, the people answer to me! I won!
Judge Kagan: Objection Sustained. You cant discuss the presidents “Other” citizenships. He was a minor when he had all of them, when he was born.
PA: Your Honor, if it please the court....
BO: Objection, counsel is acting stupidly, like white police!!
Kagan: Sustained.
PA: No further questions.
Oh that was so nasty of us.
And now we have the nerve to repeat the rules, again, before the next election? Oh, how nasty of us.
Called you out there buddy .... the precious little Kenayn fag can shove it, I don't care what he thinks.
The summer before the election I told numerous people he wasn't qualifed because of his dual citizenship at birth and adoption. My Daughter, my parents, my brothers, my in-laws, my wife.
So tell me again, how Natural law isn't part of the Constitution “Mr. Facts”. Lets here it again.
Copy and paste the quote.
As I recall, they declared him to be a citizen.
I cant find that quote in the decision. Be a Dear and help me out Mr. Blade. I'm not finding it like you, the one who deals with law and fact.
Paste that sentence right here buddy..... we're waiting.
Reading is fundamental. Waite talked about two classes ... one which was in doubt and one which was not. Only ONE was characterized as "natural-born citizens." And it IS there. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” Jefferson
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.