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.
Its a bitch when such historically important text books are printed 200 years to late to influence documented history.
[bladebryan had written:]Ah, so the "exclusively" that you claimed was in your imagination, not in the Court's opinion.So quote that “exclusively” part of your favorite decision there. Show where, even in dicta, the Court said *only* that class are NBC.It's in the formal characterization of those born in the country to parents who were it's citizens.These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
He also remembers the birther two citizen parent conspiracy theory starting in 1972. He said our teacher was so hot she started global warming! So Al Gore was right all along!!!
Godebert wrote: “Your kidding, right? Quotes from unknown text books from 1958, 1965 and 1975? How about a quote from one of the Founding Fathers?”
Responding in reverse order: First I’ve got quotes from Founding Fathers. For example:
“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
Second, I don’t see how textbook citation so easily verifiable via the given links are “unknown text books”. Do the links not work for you?
Third and finally, what I’m doing is debunking, not kidding. Debunking necessarily involves recognizing ludicrous crank nonsense — and that alone leaves it open to criticism for giving garbage more than its due — but debunking is not just a joke.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84025968/1890-05-02/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Vattel+nature?date1=1836&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=Vatte
Is it a Federal judge or state quoting Vattel and deciding case the son’s citizenship follows the father not the mother.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84025968/1890-05-02/ed-1/seq-8/
Madison knew that if two citizens left the united states and had a child born in France, a dual citizen, then raised in France, might not consider himself to be an American.
Much like Obama’s dual citizenship, and then being raised in Indonesia. It presents clear doubts of allegiance.
Dual citizenship was recognized as a threat to allegiance from day 1. It still is.
Seems US v Ward is already on the blogs.
The judge does state Vattel is a part of the common law.
So he needs to step things up and we see it all over, with F&F, NBPP, SEIU, and his rhetoric to his people. Much like Arafat did. Tell the listening public what they want to hear. Behind the scenes is opposite. his actions speak volumes of what is to come.
This new bill that will allow "American Citizens" to be held captive is just incredible, and it passed the Senate with 97 votes!
After thinking about that new law you can't ignore things like this Preacher to FBI: Put up or shut up! Demands details on 'investigation' into evangelistic work
There are many of us who fall into the "groups" that will be targeted. And again Gun sales were huge on Black Friday.
There is a FReeper here with tag line of "America, too far gone to fix, too soon to start shooting."
I fear it will read "Pretty soon we will be shooting"
I could go on and on with examples of the path this guy is leading us to but I am sure you know. I didn't even bring up the Muslim Brotherhoods infiltration of the executive branch. Ever wonder why they got rid of Weiner so quickly? His wife is Hillary's right hand gal. Her mother and brother are big players in the MBH.
Timing to coincide with CRR? Hmmmm
We see a man that bows to foreign Dictators. A man that mocks half of Americas citizens, that he governs. We have never seen a president behave in this fashion, because we have never had a president with foreign citizenship before.
It's almost as if he sees himself as god or a lord. A king. Not a servant of the people. This is common in Islamic cultures. Obama is our first Un-American president. He thinks we suck.
PA-RIVER wrote: “So Madison states that place of birth and Parentage are criterion for allegiance. That’s consistent with Minor Vs Happersett’s definition of NBC, Two parent citizens and birth on American soil.”
Everyone’s eyes are different. The part you missed was, “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
There were diffing opinions before U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, but that was over a century ago. As the CRS explained, “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
And justice Gray who opined in his 1898, WKA v U.S. explained that the 14th Amendment determined who is legally (Gray got his legal opinion wrong but that's another issue) a citizen by virtue of being born in the United States, BUT not who are natural born citizens of these United States.
It is a very very simple concept to understand what the founders of the US Constitution meant by "natural born" as being part of nature, things that naturally occur in life, Gods law or mother nature where no human law (positive law) is needed or required. The 14th Amendment is a man-made law, therefore, it is not natural as opposed to the direct reference in the US Constitution to natural law the natural born citizen clause.
Lawyer Maskell takes a disingenuous position but I suppose that's what many lawyers do by taking any side of an argument that they may find themselves, and Maskell finds himself on the side of the establishment.
Thanks for the pings! Good stuff. Needs to go in the research thread.
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.