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.
Who are arguing against?? I didn't reject anything about place of birth applies in the United States nor did I say that anything was limited to South Carolina. I did notice that you've completely punted the birthright criterion that Madison included. Thanks for conceding that point. And you're welcome for the reading lesson.
Post 104? I keep searching KWA for something like these two lines and I cant find it :
“A natural born Citizen is born in America” or “KWA is a natural born Citizen”.
Again, be man and paste the line right here:
In such a case I believe that for an adopted child that child’s true/valid birth information would be necessary to be eligible for POTUSA. I also don’t believe that the parents of an adopted child can claim the child is of their ‘natural birth’. In other words such a child should early be vetted as to full citizenship from birth to remove any doubts, something that was not done for Obama.
Now read David Ramsays essay. There were no natural born citizens in America older than 13 years old when Madison wrote this. Mr. Smith was simply a citizen, just as George Washington and Madison himself. This is why the clause was constructed to allow founders such as Washington to be president.
I would think The first natural born citizens were born July 4th, 1776. It seems Madison was correct in calling Mr. Smith a citizen. Just a citizen. Nothing more.
I guess 1811 was the first year that an NBC could be eligible for the presidency. 35 years old, born after 7/4/1776.
I bet there were articles in the newspapers that year.
Election year would be 1812 or 1813, running against Madison. I wonder if NBC was spelled out during that election, in some of the states.
Madison, et al., were "guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina."
His allegiance was to the U.S and not G.B. due to being born in the colonies and then gained "citizen" of the U.S. due to the Declaration of Independence.
Nothing there at all about "natural born Citizen."
It's like having a president with four citizenships, such as Obama.
You were a good witness, Justice Kagan was impressed. I couldn't rattle you under cross examination.
In this new age of dual citizen at birth presidencies, If the 14th and NBC clause do not limit citizenships at birth, and do not limit or consider citizenships acquired and or relinquished prior to or after majority, is it then acceptable for the president acquire new citizenships while in office as president?
Can we elect a Canadian citizen if he was born in America? He would be NBC qualified, correct?
Can we elect a Canadian citizen, born in America, who naturalized as an American as an Adult?
Why do have this clause if it allows foreign citizens to run for the office?
What is the modern purpose of the NBC clause?
Is it to make sure foreign citizens have an American birth certificate before they run for the office?
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.