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.
| Office | Citizenship |
|
Age | Residency (or years citizen) |
| President & Commander in Chief (1 of 1) | natural born Citizen |
|
35 | 14 years resident |
| Senator (1 of many) | Citizen |
|
30 | 9 years a Citizen |
| Represantative (1 of many) | Citizen |
|
25 | 7 years a Citizen |
Assuming Barry's father really was Obama Sr., Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright.
Then, when Kenyan gained it's independence, Barry obtained Kenyan citizenship at age ~2.
He possibly even had Indonesian citizenship if his step father Lolo Soetoro adopted him.
Forget dual citizen...Barry was/is a multi-national. He was born, at least, half foreigner. He never was a "natural born Citizen."
Question is, do enough people care in the present day that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is currently being completely ignored? Where are all the "Constitutionalists?"
"Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda."
BUMP
1) A child is born in Russia and abandoned to the care of a children's home.
2) A married couple, both of whom are U.S. citizens, adopt the child in Russia while he is an infant.
3) As part of finalizing the adoption in Russia, the Russian court issues a new birth certificate for the child which names the adoptive parents as the child's birth parents.
4) Upon returning to the U.S., the child's parents 'readopt' him in their home State. Based on the contents of the child's Russian-issued birth certificate, the State lists the adoptive parents as the child's birth parents on the birth certificate issued by that State.
Question: Do you think this child would legally qualify as a "natural-born citizen" of the United States?
I am glad Leo addressed this propaganda so quickly...
Does the fogbow crowd still want to hang their hats on this memo?
Leo Rocks!
If it is known that the child was born with full (or even part) allegience to the Russian government? No, that child wouldn’t be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, as known and intended by the framers.
No.
Why would they feel the need to release yet another CRS memo on this topic?
Don't they feel that they put Barry's eligibility issue to bed with the release of the (clearly forged) LFBC last April?
Don't they think the media (both liberal AND conservative) have done a good enough job of ridiculing this issue into submission?
Don't they think the courts have effectively scared off (with fines and threats of sanctions) or otherwise ignored this issue with great success?
Again, why go through the trouble to write up this lengthy opinion now?
Could it be that AG Holder will resign in the coming weeks/months with the mounting pressure on him to do so?
With Barry's personal firewall (Holder) out of the way, there will be a period of time before Holder's replacement is in position.
Perhaps they sense a coming weakness in their defenses.
Afterall, why keep the issue alive, even if they are only trying to cover for Barry?
What are they worried about at this point?
{:^)
Guess that means that the "Terminator", born in Austria, first adopt by Vince G. (an American citizen), then re-adopted by Joe W. (a Canadian citizen??), and finally adopted by the Kennedy clan (citizens...but fans of Hitler & Stalin) is definitely not eligible to be POTUS?
Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Error and Disinformation Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement
(Maskell writes, “There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.” Two sentences later he states, “…the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century…” If there is no controlling case law, how can the issue have been settled law for more than a century?)
All citizens have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities...with one exception. Only a "natural born Citizen" may be President and Commander in Chief (post grandfather clause).
The "Maskell Memo" is full of contradictions and misinformation. They must be worried about something.
"frightening quotation surgery" (from Leo's article). Brilliant.
Many of us, including Leo, have asked "Why now?"
My theory is that "they" now fear a more enlightened Congress. Notwithstanding the public's pre-election outcry and attempted lawsuits, the 2009 Congress arguably felt safe hiding behind the first CRS memo.
The issue is now even stronger in the public's mind. Further, a substantial amount of information, research and patently bogus BC's have shed light on this national fraud. My intuition says "they" fear an avalanche.
Wow, this piece is a legal mess. This falls under the category of “if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with bull manure.” The author makes several critical errors and unsupported assumptions. I'll point out a few:
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms”the common law rule of “citizenship by birth within the territory,” even if one is born of alien parents in this country, and approved of the characterization of the children of such resident aliens as “natural born” citizens of the United States.63
There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that “approved” a characterization of children of resident aliens as natural born citizens. This is an outright fabrication. It's footnoted to page 693, which is the part where Gray quotes Binney saying the child of an alien “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” This passage doesn't approve of a characterization, nor does anything else on this page. It's making an analogy in which it still distinguishes children of aliens from natural-born citizenship. It only says their level of citizenship is the same by virtue of the 14th amendment, which no one disagrees with. If the president requirement was only basic citizenship, then this would be true. But it requires the specific characterization of “natural-born” which is neither expressly stated nor implied. Secondly, this is the same kind of dicta that Maskell downplays from Minor. He also ignores that this passage requires domicile (Obama’s father was not domiciled in the U.S.): “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction ...” Under this requirement, Obama fails to be a 14th amendment citizen.
Maskell, for unknown reasons, wants to downplay the influence of Vattel. He says he was only cited once by the Federal Convention of 1787. This ignores that Vattel was cited frequently by the Journals of the Continental Congress between at least 1780 and 1787. The Law of Nations is cited even more frequently.
This next passage is another work of fiction. It says that Minor v Happersett:
... discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so.
This is NOT what it says. Some authorities include as citizens those born “without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” This doesn't say anything about a question of whether such children would be a “natural born” citizen. It's questioning whether they are citizens. It also does NOT say that some authorities hold such persons to be NBCs.
The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case.
... because it established an exclusive set of criteria for defining natural-born. Maskell claims the discussion quoted here is dicta and not relevant to the holding in the case, which is false. This was the basis for establishing Virginia Minor's citizenship in rejecting an argument that it was derived through the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark noted this fact and affirmed it, which Maskell fails to understand.
The majority opinion of the Court [in WKA] clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen
The conclusion above is based on the same dicta using the Binney “as much a citizen” citation. It's a faulty conclusion and poor reading.
By footnote, Maskell claims this about Minor:
Any analysis of the distinction between “holding” and dicta is simplified in Minor v. Happersett, as the Supreme Court expressly explained that “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve” the issue of parental citizenship, thus clearly stating that its discussion was not part of, and the resolution of the issue not necessary to, the underlying holding or ruling of that case.
Waite did NOT say it is not necessary to solve the issue of “parental citizenship.” He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. What Waite did NOT solve is the issue of territorial-birth citizenship. “Parental citizenship” was directly applicable to the holding in Minor because it was used to reject the 14th amendment citizenship argument proposed by Virginia Minor.
There are plenty of other errors. What needs to be understood is that Minor was a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court affirmed that definition in Wong Kim Ark. There was no way Horace Gray was going to overturn a unanimous decision. There's no other higher judicial or legal authority. Not 20th century “legal scholars.” Not circuit court decisions. Not state appeals court decisions. And not the CRS.
The author of the CRS memo has learned well from the example set by the courts. Cherry-pick, and if that doesn't work without assistance, then ignore the inconvenient parts of what you cite for authority. Not many people will ever check your (not you, rxsid) false contention.
Because it's an election year, and based on the memo subject that children born abroad can allegedly be natural-born citizens ... a bombshell about Barry is going to come out soon. My guess is that SAD had an African-American lover and that Barry was born in Canada, Indonesia or the Phillippines.
The memo was produced for some Congress critters. They don’t want the truth. They want talking points to try to justify misinforming the public. Obviously the inconvenient definition of NBC from Minor is gaining traction, else they wouldn’t try to baffle people with a bunch of bullishness.
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.