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.
PA: Please be seated.
BB: Why am I here? WTF is this??? PA, You bastard!
PA: You claim to know that natural born Citizen, as described by Mr. Ramsay, John Jay, accepted by Washington, and spelled out by Chief justice Waite was overturned. Where is your proof? There must be a precise wording that overrides this constitutional dictate, in plain English, that you say, now allows for born dual citizens to become president. This is a big jump.
BB: ......
PA: Judge, if it please the court, Mr. Blade needs some Vaseline. I think the legal phrase he's looking for may be stuck .... that's not a thumb in his butt. He's reaching for his next legal opinion. The one that says how the natural born clause was amended.
Judge Kagan: STFU. Mr. Blade doesn't need to find an amendment to the Constitution that specifically changes requirements for the presidency. We are judges. We won. We just change it.
PA: But judge, next thing you will tell me is I have no right to decide how to spend my money if you can dictate from the bench.
BB: She's correct PA. We don't need to amend the constitution to destroy it ... I mean make it better. Did I say that? I'm a Republican, I swear to it!
PA: So where's the quote?
BB: We don't really need an exact quote when overriding constitutional principles. Its kinda like getting your mortgage adjusted or lending money to Solyndra or GM. We just kinda do it when we feel like it. We won. Its not fair because Obama is black and you question his citizenship before an election. Its just not right. That's just so wrong in so many levels. In fact I think its racist. I ...
Judge Kagan: I rule in favor of BB. The race card has been dealt, and it must be respected. Your dismissed BB. GTFO of my court PA. Its citizens like you that disgust me. We modify the constitution for you, and all we get is complaints. We are wiser than the Founders. We won. And the chair with the rising sun in Philadelphia? It ain't big enough for my ass in all its splendor. Ben Franklin can have it. I need a big big wide bench baby.
Apparently not. You, et al are still trying to foist Medieval feudal/Monarchy based law onto our Republic. Despite the fact that it was explicitly rejected by the War of 1812.
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:
You keep forgetting Mario Bellei. He received his citizenship upon birth, but he was not a "natural born citizen." You also keep forgetting that in 1790, the first congress decreed that anyone born to American parent(S) beyond the seas, would be a "natural born citizen". Clearly the first congress which was made up of many of the men who WROTE the constitution did not feel that "place" was the essential criteria for "natural born citizenship".
“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)
Again, you miss the significance of the word "Unresolved." Juxtaposed next to "Settled law for a century" it is an obvious dichotomy. Not caring what later day opinionaters have to say about what the courts thought about what the founders meant or intended, i'm not going to bother reading either Gordon or that other Hack you cited. I would point out that if he concludes that foreign born Americans are eligible, he will have come to the same conclusion as the first congress in 1790, and for the same reason. "Place" is not the characteristic which defines loyalty. Upbringing by loyal parents is.
Speaking of which, do you think Barack Obama is loyal to this nation?
We've covered this already. Your "judge" is a Clinton Appointee and an idiot that makes a glaring factual error on Constitutional comprehension in the first sentence of his opinion. As far as i'm concerned, he might as well be a member of the Volksgerichtshof. *I* do not care what he thinks, nor should any other American.
Clinton Appointees should not be granted an air of respectability. They are fools\saboteurs.
The 14th Amendment DID NOT repeal article II. It naturalized all the Slaves and their Children. Wong Kim Ark went WAY beyond the intentions of the Congress and the State Legislators who voted for it, (Those in the South were COERCED into voting for it.) and is therefore bad law.
Either than or they’re pretend experts who only started telling the rules that way after they saw that Barack Obama was winning.
And AGAIN you repeat that lie. You keep overlooking the fact that the focus was on the birth certificate first because if you can't meet 14th Amendment citizenship requirements, then you CERTAINLY can't meet the requirements for President as most people erroneously understand them. If he couldn't prove he was born here, there was no need to go any further, and given his extreme reluctance to release any information about his birth (in the initial release, even his birth certificate number was blacked out.) people were rightly concerned about his attempts at fraud.
But you know this, and I think you won't acknowledge the truth so long as it conflicts with your narrative.
Do you think Barack Obama is a loyal American?
“Give me the sentence in KWA that declares what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is.
[...]
..... we’re waiting. “
Why wait? See post 104.
PA-RIVER wrote: “For my Next Witness, I would call president Barak Obama. [...]”
And: “For my next witness, I call Mr. Blade to the stand.”
You’re a hoot. I write: “Quite different from when you try cases in your imagination, isn’t it?” Then you come right back with the demo.
What does Madison’s quote regarding “citizens” and their allegiance with respect to the 1778 Constitution of South Carolina and that state’s laws at the time, have to do with “natural born Citizens” and the requirement in the U.S Constitution?
“In framing an instrument, which was intended to be perpetual, the presumption is strong, that every important principle introduced into it is intended to be perpetual also.” Chief Justice Marshall joined by Justice Story
“The U.S. Supreme Court explained what “natural born” means by quoting British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)”
Justice John McLean stated, “It is for the people … in making constitutions and the enactment of laws, to consider laws of nature … This is a field which judges cannot explore.
“the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen … is in the States and not in the federal government.
I have sought to effect no change in that respect.”
John Bingham
DiogenesLamp wrote: “Wong Kim Ark went WAY beyond the intentions of the Congress and the State Legislators who voted for it, (Those in the South were COERCED into voting for it.) and is therefore bad law.”
I’ve not been trying to talk you out of your opinion on that. I love that in our nation you have the right to pass judgement on U.S. Supreme Court precedents. My point is that your jurisdiction is the inside of your own head.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “We’ve covered this already. Your ‘judge’ is a Clinton Appointee and an idiot”
Yes, “We’ve covered this already.” I don’t suggest that you have to like the decisions. I point out how your theories fare before *real* judges, on the benches of a *real* courts.
rxsid asked: “What does Madison’s quote regarding ‘citizens’ and their allegiance with respect to the 1778 Constitution of South Carolina and that state’s laws at the time, have to do with ‘natural born Citizens’ and the requirement in the U.S Constitution?”
Madison’s quote speaks for itself:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States” — James Madison, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179–82
bushpilot1 quoted John Bingham: “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen … is in the States and not in the federal government.”
So look at the at the state court cases, as aptly cited in the CRS report. See Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 242, 244 (1 Sand. ch. 583) (1844). Even better, in one of the few cases where the Article II NBC clause was specifically at issue and the court clearly addressed it, the unanimous opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana answered:
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Ankeny v. Daniels
The losing plaintiffs petitioned for transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which denied the petition with all justices concurring.
Your argument is "They are powerful, therefore You are wrong." A more basic form of your argument is "might makes right." Yes, the courts have the power of the gun to back them up, but that does not make them correct in their proclamations. You seem to have difficulty comprehending the distinction between being right and having power. It is Galileo v the Pope all over again.
If you had intellectual capacity, you could explain how the court decisions are correct BEYOND the fact that they can get armed men to enforce their decrees. (A newer version of trial by combat.)
Yes, “We’ve covered this already.” I don’t suggest that you have to like the decisions. I point out how your theories fare before *real* judges, on the benches of a *real* courts.
As well as Jewish victims protesting the loss of their property rights in the Volksgerichtshof. You do not comprehend the point. I am arguing that the courts in power are CORRUPT.
They do not administer law, they administer illegitimate liberal opinion with the trappings and power of law. This is a pretty common belief among conservatives regarding our Judicial system. It is strange that you do not share it. Have you ever criticized Roe v Wade, or Kelo?
The WHOLE quote certainly does. This part you quoted only says that place is the "most certain criterion" ... which does not mean "only criterion." Place is more certain than parentage because the parents may have divided nationality or divided allegiances, such as Obama's parents, who have divided nationalities (but not allegiances).
The rest of Madison's quote, which gives the full context, says:
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison immediately acknowledges ancestry and birthright, the latter of which is jus sanguinis. What most Obot apologists miss is that Madison's defense of Smith (to seat him as a representative) was based on an argument that Smith was born a citizen of South Carolina AHEAD of being born a British subject. He argued that when the state threw its allegiance to the United States as a new country, that it did so for its citizens who did not explicitly adhere to their British citizenship. They were South Carolinians first and British nationals second. When South Carolina became a U.S. state, then they were U.S. citizens by virtue of being South Carolinians. This is why he's emphasizing that Smith's birthright is from being the child of original settler's of the colony of South Carolina and not a birthright of being a British subject at birth. The place is certain, but the national allegiance through birthright is based on the allegiance of the parents controlled by the political will of the state.
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...
Does Jack Maskell address this contradiction in the CRS report?? If not, then he fails to make his case. He fails anyway, by citing so much irrelevant caselaw. The only definition of NBC per Article II accepted by the nation's highest judicial authority is an exclusive definition and verbatim match of the law of nations: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
If you want judicial review, such as the multiple pages in the Maskell's CRS report, we already have that in the U.S. v Wong Kim Ark decision, which settled on a final and exclusive NBC definition per Art. II by citing and affirming the Minor definition of NBC.
The 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth in WKA excludes Obama from being born a U.S. citizen, even if he could legally prove he was born on U.S. soil, because under common law, dual citizenship is NOT allowed, and because one's citizenship is based upon on whom the parents adhered to in terms of nationality. In Obama's case, this makes him a British subject at birth, not a natural-born citizen.
I'm glad you mentioned Lynch v. Clarke (A state case, not a Federal case.) The logic of the court was that since New York did not have a statute defining citizenship, the court had decided to use the English Common law definition. The New York Legislature immediately rebuked the court by passing a citizenship definition statute that effectively overturned the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke for any subsequent cases.
As I keep telling you, It is the DUTY of the PEOPLE to REBUKE the COURT when the court is wrong.
It sure does:
"I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United-States, and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this house. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance [Edit: He say's it's a criterion. Not the only criterion]. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion [Edit: Most certain. Again, not the only criterion]; it is what applies in the United States; [Edit: They are determining if Mr. Smith is a "citizen", not if he is a "natural born Citizen." Therefore, birth in the country confer's "citizenship" to him since he was in country after Independence. The 14th Amendment would be a more modern application of this thinking.] it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.
This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain were of two descriptions, minors, or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter nothing can be inferred with respect to them from the decision on the present case; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties: whether this was a matter of right or not is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith's, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared, that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us they violated their allegiance and opposed our laws; so then there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connection, who can be affected by the decision of the present question. The number I admit is large who might be acknowledged citizens on my principles; but there will very few be found daring enough to face the laws of the country they have violated, and against which they have committed high treason.
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature. "
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
Again, the laws and the 1778 Constitution of the pre U.S. Constitution state of South Carolina have nothing to do with who is a "natural born Citizen." Madison uses those laws to determine if a former subject of the English crown is then a citizen of the state of South Carolina. And even though Mr. Smith had lived in Europe for many years (including around the founding of the country), his allegiance remained with the new country because he never renounced his gained U.S. citizenship. Nothing more.
edge919 wrote: “This part you quoted only says that place is the “most certain criterion” ... which does not mean “only criterion.”
No, that’s not all it says. Here’s the part you missed: “it is what applies in the United States”. Place is not merely the most criterion, and what applies in the United States is not limited to South Carolina.
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.