Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
Full of Lies Congressional Research Report on Natural Born Citizen

Full of Lies Congressional Research Report on Natural Born Citizen

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21 |Likes:
Published by Pamela Barnett
The Congressional Research Service releases another (intentionally) error-ridden and deceptive report on the natural born citizen requirement, by legislative attorney Jack Maskell. The document is full of contradictions. (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?) Maskell intentionally treats the terms citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship at birth as equivalent, when they are not. Predictably, Maskell misinterprets and misstates the Supreme Court cases United States v. Kim Wong Ark and Minor v. Happersett. Further, Maskell ridicules those who rely on the use of the term natural born citizen in Emerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, arguing that an English translation of the book was not published until after the adoption if the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers did, in fact, rely on Vattel but, unlike Maskell, they understood French. (Maskell apparently believes that history is relevant only if written in English.)

With regard to Obama in particular, Maskell states that he is a natural born citizen as proven by his Hawaiian birth certificate and declares that sufficient because “…there appear to be no legitimate, official documentary records, or copies of such records, which have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie record of …Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as provided in the official certification (or certificate) of live birth released by the Obama campaign in 2008 and attested to by Hawaii Department of Health officials, or the certified copy of the ‘long form’ birth certificate publicly shown and released on April 27, 2011.” Of course, evidence has been presented to the contrary, with more than a few document experts having shown that Obama’s birth certificates are fraudulent. Maskell claims, “No verified, official record of birth from any other jurisdiction or country has been produced; no contradictory health record or hospital record has been forwarded; and no official record of travel (such as a passport record) appears to exist placing …Obama’s mother in a foreign country at the time of [Obama’s] birth.” Conveniently, of course, Obama has seen to it that no one can access those records. Thus, on the one hand, Maskell argues that no one has provided passport records proving Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya. On the other hand, Obama has refused to allow anyone to access his mother’s passport records for the period in question. (Making contradictory evidence impossible to access certainly bolsters the case of one who claims that no such evidence exists.) That Maskell went to the significant trouble of preparing a 53-page eligibility document clearly suggests that Obama and his close supporters are fearful that the issue is not going away. Legislators will no doubt be given the document and told, “Just rely on this, and don’t even consider entertaining thoughts of ballot challenges.” The hidden message will be, “…even if you would rather see Hillary Clinton as the 2012 Democrat Party nominee.” (Interestingly, Obama had Maskell prepare a defense for his use in the court of public opinion, yet he has gone out of his way to avoid having the eligibility issue brought before the Supreme Court. Obama apparently believes he can continue to convince the voters that he is a natural born citizen, but does not believe he can persuade a majority of the Supreme Court Justices.)

I would prefer to post something more detailed but, of course, the Timeline is meant to provide readers with brief summaries of the day's Obama-related events. In the event anyone in the group produces a detailed rebuttal of
The Congressional Research Service releases another (intentionally) error-ridden and deceptive report on the natural born citizen requirement, by legislative attorney Jack Maskell. The document is full of contradictions. (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?) Maskell intentionally treats the terms citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship at birth as equivalent, when they are not. Predictably, Maskell misinterprets and misstates the Supreme Court cases United States v. Kim Wong Ark and Minor v. Happersett. Further, Maskell ridicules those who rely on the use of the term natural born citizen in Emerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, arguing that an English translation of the book was not published until after the adoption if the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers did, in fact, rely on Vattel but, unlike Maskell, they understood French. (Maskell apparently believes that history is relevant only if written in English.)

With regard to Obama in particular, Maskell states that he is a natural born citizen as proven by his Hawaiian birth certificate and declares that sufficient because “…there appear to be no legitimate, official documentary records, or copies of such records, which have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie record of …Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as provided in the official certification (or certificate) of live birth released by the Obama campaign in 2008 and attested to by Hawaii Department of Health officials, or the certified copy of the ‘long form’ birth certificate publicly shown and released on April 27, 2011.” Of course, evidence has been presented to the contrary, with more than a few document experts having shown that Obama’s birth certificates are fraudulent. Maskell claims, “No verified, official record of birth from any other jurisdiction or country has been produced; no contradictory health record or hospital record has been forwarded; and no official record of travel (such as a passport record) appears to exist placing …Obama’s mother in a foreign country at the time of [Obama’s] birth.” Conveniently, of course, Obama has seen to it that no one can access those records. Thus, on the one hand, Maskell argues that no one has provided passport records proving Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya. On the other hand, Obama has refused to allow anyone to access his mother’s passport records for the period in question. (Making contradictory evidence impossible to access certainly bolsters the case of one who claims that no such evidence exists.) That Maskell went to the significant trouble of preparing a 53-page eligibility document clearly suggests that Obama and his close supporters are fearful that the issue is not going away. Legislators will no doubt be given the document and told, “Just rely on this, and don’t even consider entertaining thoughts of ballot challenges.” The hidden message will be, “…even if you would rather see Hillary Clinton as the 2012 Democrat Party nominee.” (Interestingly, Obama had Maskell prepare a defense for his use in the court of public opinion, yet he has gone out of his way to avoid having the eligibility issue brought before the Supreme Court. Obama apparently believes he can continue to convince the voters that he is a natural born citizen, but does not believe he can persuade a majority of the Supreme Court Justices.)

I would prefer to post something more detailed but, of course, the Timeline is meant to provide readers with brief summaries of the day's Obama-related events. In the event anyone in the group produces a detailed rebuttal of

More info:

Published by: Pamela Barnett on Oct 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CRS Report for Congress
 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Qualifications for President and the “NaturalBorn” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative AttorneyNovember 14, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
http://www.crs.gov/
 R42097
 
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement Congressional Research Service
Summary
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is noSupreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements(although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has beenthe subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of theterm evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in theConstitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washingtonduring the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthyEuropean aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying andscheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” withrespect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states,from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of 
 jus soli
(law of thesoil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, asnoted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in theUnited States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect tocitizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in thedocument must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law”since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (andstate) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States andsubject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even toalien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to“naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controllingAmerican case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs theeligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century,there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born
outside
of the country to U.S.citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of theterm “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (
 jus soli
), as well as the
 statutory
 laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to Britishfathers (
 jus sanguinis
, the law of descent).The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen wouldmean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born“in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being bornabroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
 
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement Congressional Research Service
Contents
History of the Qualifications Clause in the Federal Convention of 1787........................................4
 
Procedural History.....................................................................................................................4
 
Apparent Purpose and Intent.....................................................................................................5
 
Common Law Meaning of the Term “Natural Born” Citizen or Subject.........................................9
 
Common Law and the Constitution...........................................................................................9
 
Common Law and Persons Born “In” the Country.................................................................11
 
Common Law and Persons Born Abroad to Citizen-Parents...................................................14
 
Common Understanding in 18
th
Century of the Term “Natural Born” Citizen..............................16
 
Citizenship at Birth: Case Law and Interpretations.......................................................................25
 
Legal Cases and Senator McCain............................................................................................34
 
Legal Cases and President Obama...........................................................................................38
 
Allegations of Loss of Citizenship....................................................................................43
 
Assertion of Two Citizen-Parent Requirement..................................................................44
 
Contacts
Author Contact Information...........................................................................................................50
 

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->