Thread: English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Love how what "Jack Maskell is crap, but you believe the steer manure written by Bob McCarty.

And not to ignore that the blog post cited by Dutch here was from more than a year ago and about a different memo.

Originally Posted by WongKimArk

And not to ignore that the blog post cited by Dutch here was from more than a year ago and about a different memo.

Well the CRS is just another example of those government agencies that Birthers know they can't trust such as:
The State of Hawaii
Congress
the Courts
The Military
All 50 Secretaries of State
The State Department

Luckily they have WND, Canadian Free Republic, Orly, Donofrio, Kerchner and Youtube video's to rely upon for the 'truth'.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Well the CRS is just another example of those government agencies that Birthers know they can't trust such as:
The State of Hawaii
Congress
the Courts
The Military
All 50 Secretaries of State
The State Department

Luckily they have WND, Canadian Free Republic, Orly, Donofrio, Kerchner and Youtube video's to rely upon for the 'truth'.

It's not so much the institutions and agencies that can't be trusted, it's some people within these institutions, who by there own initiative or by coercion have failed to uphold their oaths and duties.

Here's an interesting read, which exposes either or both Jack Maskell's incompetence or/and deliberate acts of deception.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/...lic-until-now/

Here's a portion from the article.......

Although the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” these exists a wealth of information and authority (for those willing to review and consider it) bearing upon what the Founding Fathers understood the meaning of the term to be and what their intent was through its incorporation into the Constitution between 1776 and 1789, the years leading up to the drafting, signing and ratification of the Constitution.

Specifically, the writings of the Swiss-German legal philosopher, Emmerich de Vattel in his 1758 tome on international law – The Law of Nations – in particular bear heavily on the issue. In the preface to the 1999 digital edition of The Law of Nations, and commenting on the 1883 edition by Joseph Chitty, Esq. (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm), is found the following:

“This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty’s notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel’s exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience.” (Emphasis added)

In Book I, Chapter XIX, § 212 of The Law of Nations, addressing the issue of what constitutes the citizens and natives of a country, de Vattel notes as follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Indeed, while the CRS Memo goes to great lengths to expound upon the fact that, for example, a well-known legal treatise popular in England in colonial times, Blackstone’s Commentaries, was “… widely known in the Colonies…” and that certain commentators believed that the “… Framers had a broad view of the term ‘natural born’ and considered all foreign-born children of American citizen parents eligible for the Office of the Presidency…,” (see CRS Memo at fn. 44 and accompanying text), the CRS Memo is devoid of any reference at all to the teachings of de Vattel, even in a dismissive way. Unlike the CRS Memo, even Blackstone’s Commentaries and the United States Supreme Court recognize de Vattel and the impact and influence of his writings on the Founding Fathers.

Now I wonder why Jack Maskell didn't mention Vattel?

Here's some more on Jack.

While Maskell accepts the dicta in Wong Kim Ark because he agrees with the argument, he dismisses as dicta the only Supreme Court definition of "natural born citizen" that is on point regarding the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, namely, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874), where the Supreme Court implied "natural born citizens" were those born on U.S. soil to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time the child was born.......

Maskell in his pro-Obama advocacy goes so far as to assert the two-citizen requirement would "entail the unique notion that under American jurisprudence parental citizenship or lineage is the determining factor for eligibility to the Presidency for native born U.S. citizens."

In so doing, Maskell failed to acknowledge the concern the founders had when inserting into the Constitution the "natural born citizen" requirement that being a citizen was not sufficient for a person to ascend to the presidency.

Instead, the founders determined eligibility to be president was reduced to a subset of citizens identified as "natural born citizens."

This specification demanded consideration of parental citizenship and allegiance, every bit as much as the phrase "and under the jurisdiction of" demands the same considerations of parental citizenship and allegiance when it comes to the 14th Amendment. .........

Unfortunately, rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced for Congress what amounts to a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama's eligibility defense.

In the final analysis, Maskell's purpose appears thinly disguised – namely, to advance the ongoing cover-up regarding Obama nativity facts and evidence by quashing with arguments couched in legalese the continuing concerns held by millions of Americans that Obama has truly not proved to the American public or any duly-constituted governmental institution that he is eligible to be president.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977

Jack's in denial about Vattel's popularity and influence on the founding fathers and framers of the US Constitution.

Jack's an Obot.


.

Here's a link to Part 2 of the Post & Email article by Joseph DeMaio which exposes the incompetence or/and deception of Jack Maskell

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/...bility-part-2/

Here's a portion from the article that shows Jack's er................ let's say 'stuff-up'.

THE DETAILS OF THE CRS MEMO ATTACK

It first must be kept in mind that the CRS Memo bases virtually its entire ultimate conclusion on what it claims is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Perkins v. Elg, cited above. While it cites a number of other decisions, those cases are secondary chaff in light of what the CRS Memo contends is the holding in Elg. In that case, the issue was whether one Marie Elizabeth Elg – who was born in the United States to parents who, although originally Swedish citizens, were at the time of the child’s birth both naturalized U.S. citizens – could be deprived by the United States of her citizenship by virtue of her mother’s removal of her to Sweden during her minority. The Court held that she could not be so deprived.

Despite this fact – i.e., that both of Marie Elg’s parents were, at the time of her birth, United States citizens, thus making her a “natural born citizen” consistent with § 212 of The Law of Nations – the CRS Memo asserts exactly the opposite and then builds its case for the presidential eligibility of all “native born citizens,” including (surprise, surprise…), Barack H. Obama.

The CRS Memo contends (at p. 13) that:

“The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg thus found that one born ‘in’ the U.S., even of alien [sic][emphasis in original CRS Memo] parentage, is a U.S. citizen ‘at birth,’ and in dicta [Latin for “side comment”] in the case indicated that such person is eligible to be President of the United States. The Court explained that even if that person’s parents move back to their country of origin with their child, and obtain citizenship for that child in the foreign country, such a U.S. citizen ‘at birth’ who returns or intends to return to the United States by the age of majority remains a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.”

The only problem with this assertion in the CRS Memo is that it is wrong.

First, the CRS claim that the Court in Elg was addressing a fact situation involving a child born in the United States of alien parents is flat wrong.

Both of Marie Elg’s parents were naturalized U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, a fact confirmed through an examination of the U.S. Court of Appeals prior decision in the case (Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (App. D.C. 193) and later reiterated and confirmed in Thomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 170 (D.C.D.C. 1951).

Stated otherwise, even under the principles set out in § 212 of The Law of Nations, Marie Elg would have qualified as a “natural born citizen.”

Thus, to reiterate, the CRS contention that the Supreme Court in Elg was examining a fact situation involving a child born of “alien” parents is demonstrably and manifestly in error. Whether the error is “innocent,” of course, is quite another question.

Jack's an Obot, so what do you expect? .................. Dem and Dummer


.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Well the CRS is just another example of those government agencies that Birthers know they can't trust such as:
The State of Hawaii
Congress
the Courts
The Military
All 50 Secretaries of State
The State Department

Luckily they have WND, Canadian Free Republic, Orly, Donofrio, Kerchner and Youtube video's to rely upon for the 'truth'.

Mate - once you have bought into a conspiracy theory there is no amount of evidence you cannot dismiss

Oh Michael...

Originally Posted by SFJEFF
Well the CRS is just another example of those government agencies that Birthers know they can't trust such as:
The State of Hawaii
Congress
the Courts
The Military
All 50 Secretaries of State
The State Department

Luckily they have WND, Canadian Free Republic, Orly, Donofrio, Kerchner and Youtube video's to rely upon for the 'truth'.

Your response:

"It's not so much the institutions and agencies that can't be trusted, it's some people within these institutions, who by there own initiative or by coercion have failed to uphold their oaths and duties."

'Some people'? Not a single person in Congress, Republican or Democrat objected to confirming Obama's election.

Not a single court has found any validity to any Birther claim.

Not a single Secretary of State of any of the 50 States agrees with Birthers

Every administration in the State of Hawaii since Obama was first a candidate has declared Obama was born there.

And lets not forget the Voter's Michael- all 70 million or so of them that just ignored what you claim to be the definition of Natural Born citizen.

That is because unlike those educated in Australia, like yourself, everyone born and raised in the United States knows that Natural Born Citizen means born in the United States.

Make any Krazy Konspiracy claims you want, but in the end, what the Congresssional Research Service paper said is simply confirming what Americans know.

And isn't it amazing that you believe that Jack Maskell is an 'obot' without knowing a thing about him- other than he isn't a Birther- while you firmly accept whatever is written at the Post and Email- a vocally anti-Obama, Birther website. You and they claim he is biased, yet for the last 3 years, P&E has been blowing the Birther horn.

If you want an actual response to Birthers idiotic claims about the CRS, go ahead and go to this anti-Birther website for a rational review:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/...l-eligibility/

But meanwhile, I suggest that anyone who is interested, read the actual CRS report, rather than rely upon Birther interpretations (re: negative spin or lies) about what the CRS said- or should have said).

The CRS report is wonderfully complete in refuting every Birther claim, and I look forward to trotting it out each time a Birther recycles the same old unsubstantiated and refuted claims they have been making for the last 3 years.

Let's demonstrate again that MichaelN is a sloppy scholar and a bit of f*ck up.

Originally Posted by MichaelN

Now I wonder why Jack Maskell didn't mention Vattel?

Maskell spent almost three pages talking about Vattel. How did you miss them... other than because you might be suffering from a cerebral lesion?

Originally Posted by MichaelN

Jack's in denial about Vattel's popularity and influence on the founding fathers and framers of the US Constitution.

You have been asked scores of times to provide a single example of a single Framer or Founder ever once quoting Vattel favorably on anything having to do with citizenship. You have proven incapable of doing so.

It's over Mike. With this research paper you can write off forever any cooperation from Congress. And since Congress has sole constitutional power for removing a sitting president (i.e. no court can do so) it appears you are sh*t out of luck.

Awwwwwwwwwww.........

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

The CRS report is wonderfully complete in refuting every Birther claim, and I look forward to trotting it out each time a Birther recycles the same old unsubstantiated and refuted claims they have been making for the last 3 years.

Here's some trotting for you ........... where 'honest' Jack Maskell deliberately deceives the readers of his 'creative' ramblings............... much like the cherry-picking of 'alien parentage' = 'natural born subject' from Calvin's case when in fact it was the parent father's 'subject' status that mattered, so too Jacky cherry-picks from Perkins v Elg with the aim to deceive, stating only selective bits of the truth that suit his agenda and excluding other important facts and information.

The CRS Memo contends (at p. 13) that:

“The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg thus found that one born ‘in’ the U.S., even of alien [sic][emphasis in original CRS Memo] parentage, is a U.S. citizen ‘at birth,’ and in dicta [Latin for “side comment”] in the case indicated that such person is eligible to be President of the United States. The Court explained that even if that person’s parents move back to their country of origin with their child, and obtain citizenship for that child in the foreign country, such a U.S. citizen ‘at birth’ who returns or intends to return to the United States by the age of majority remains a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.”

The only problem with this assertion in the CRS Memo is that it is wrong.

First, the CRS claim that the Court in Elg was addressing a fact situation involving a child born in the United States of alien parents is flat wrong.

Both of Marie Elg’s parents were naturalized U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, a fact confirmed through an examination of the U.S. Court of Appeals prior decision in the case (Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (App. D.C. 193) and later reiterated and confirmed in Thomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 170 (D.C.D.C. 1951).

Stated otherwise, even under the principles set out in § 212 of The Law of Nations, Marie Elg would have qualified as a “natural born citizen.”

Thus, to reiterate, the CRS contention that the Supreme Court in Elg was examining a fact situation involving a child born of “alien” parents is demonstrably and manifestly in error. Whether the error is “innocent,” of course, is quite another question.

Here's he actual opinion of the court in Perkins v Elg where Jack Maskell's selective cherry-picking that Mary Elg's parents were "alien" can be seen for what it is, i.e. deliberate deception; Maskell conveniently failed to mention that the parents although alien-born, were in fact US citizens by naturalization.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here,

So it was of little if any importance that Mary Elg's parents were 'alien' born, the important part was that they were naturalized US citizens.

But that's what Jack Maskell does ................ he deceives and hides the truth ................. SFJEFF likes that because it suits his imperative too.

.

It's over Mike. Time for you to find a new hobby.

Your inability to understand the Maskell memo should embarrass you.

Originally Posted by MichaelN

But that's what Jack Maskell does ................ he deceives and hides the truth ................. SFJEFF likes that because it suits his imperative too.

.

Since you are just cutting and pasting from Birther websites, I will do similarly but from rational websites:

from a poster at Obamaconspiracy.org:

As someone with 28 years experience in the Congressional Research Service (I retired 10 years ago), here’s a few observations:
John says the new Maskell report “is just one lawyer’s argument,” which, since his name is the only one on the cover, is true on its face. But Maskell didn’t just write this up, have it printed, & then make it available for distribution. Before the report left the American Law Division in CRS, where he works, it was certainly peer-reviewed, definitely at the section level (Jack was in the ALD Courts Section, according to my old 2001 CRS phone directory) & then at the division level, most likely the Assistant CRS Director who heads the division & her Deputy Assistant Director. From there it went up to the CRS Director’s office for another separate review. If Jack’s draft had not passed muster at any level, it would have gone back to him for revision & rewrite. The final published report reflects not just Jack’s 38 years of experience in CRS making sense of complex constitutional issues, but also the vetting of experienced colleagues.This process has resulted in a product that is small-c conservative. That is, cutting-edge legal arguments & conclusions are absent. Instead, the work is grounded in statutory & case law, using widely accepted means of analysis & interpretation that do not venture beyond what the precedents, documentation & texts can support.
Several commenters have wondered who asked for the original report. The most likely answer is, no one in particular. Jack’s first product on the issue, back in April 2009, was a general distribution memorandum, “prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.” After Obama’s inauguration, birther questions started coming in to congressional offices (undoubtedly they started well before the inauguration, they just picked up after Obama became president), who had no clue how to answer. They bucked the question over to CRS, which prepared that short memo for congressional offices of all political persuations to respond factually to the most commonly made assertions about presidential eligibility.
John is kinda right when he says that CRS came out with this new report because “complaints are starting to pop up all over the place.” Actually, the “complaints” never went away, they kept coming, with old, refuted assertions reasserted & new assertions made to accompany them (Long-time readers & contributors to this blog will know what I’m talking about.) The likelihood is that this stuff will persist for as long as Obama is president, regardless of the shoddiness of what passes for evidence. (Check out snopes.com for the longevity of the fear that the FCC is considering a petition from atheists to ban religious broadcasting ) Figuring that this topic is an evergreen, CRS has responded with a full-fledged major report, which is as long as it has to be to cover every aspect of the qualifications controversy in convincing detail. This definitely is a major CRS report: it’s long; it has a specific report number (R42097, located down in the lower right-hand corner of the cover); & it’s in what CRS defines as report format (separate cover, table of contents) as opposed to memorandum format (look at Jack’s 2009 product, with the To/From/Subject layout & the text of the memo beginning immediately under it) Also, as a report, it can be easily revised & updated as new assertions are made or new developments occur.