English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

More fun facts from the CRS:

"The citizenship laws, rights, or recognitions of other nations could not influence and impact the United States’ own determination of who its citizens “at birth” would be, that is, who would be a “natural born” citizen, as the question of citizenship and categories of citizenship are a function of “municipal law”—the internal law of every country, as opposed to matters of international law or foreign law.

If allowing the recognition of citizenship under the law of foreign nations were determinative of natural born citizenship in the United States—as now argued by some advocates—then the operation of foreign law would, in effect, impact and be determinative of who is eligible to be President of the United States, a result wholly at odds with U.S. national sovereignty, that is, the“inherent right of every independent nation” to determine what classes of persons are to be itscitizens."

 

Ah Michael...why is it always that everyone else is wrong?

Jack Maskell
The Indiana Court of Appeals
Congress
Chief Justice Roberts
Senator Orin Hatch
Senator Lindsey Graham

its always that everyone is wrong, except Aussie Mike.

Maybe you should take some time to reflect on why everyone in the United States disagrees with you Mike.

 

Read and weep? Ok, I read it. and then I read this ... {QUOTE}:

By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?”

For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions. And now we know. The answer to the first question is, “No, Obama is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen.” The answer to the second question is, “The Jack Maskell Memorandum.” {QUOTE}

http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/

What Jack Maskell wrote is an absolute crap, which was bought by Congress. Not a rocket science, really

 

That is such an idiotic statement you should be humiliated to have quoted it as if you believed it to be true.

It is bad enough that Birthers are stupid, bigoted, incompetent at just about anything they put their minds to, and ultimately arguably insane...

But you are also, simply, wrong.

Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen. And there is nothing you will ever be able to do about it.

 

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

Seriously- anyone who can say with a straight face:
By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” is either delusional or a really, really good liar.

More people ask what happened on "Terra Nova" last night than even know about the Birther delusions.

I do know this- I will be joining with the majority of Americans when I chose a research paper written by an Attorney working for the Congressional Research Service over anything written by crank's like Donofrio or Kerchner.

Matter of fact, I look forward to quoting that paper on the rare occasions that Birthers still raise their heads here.

 

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'.

 

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...ibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/

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

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

Here's some more on Jack.

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/2011/05/31/presidential-eligibility-part-2/

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

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


.

 

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/2011/11/new-congressional-report-on-presidential-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.

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

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.........

 

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.

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

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.

 

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.

 

From the CRS report:

Those issues or “doubts” raised indictaby the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were,however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark , which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens”reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting theConstitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which theconcept was derived. The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of itsreasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen, and that the FourteenthAmendment merelyaffirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one bornon the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen:

 

Jack Maskell makes his partisan bias so obvious in his deliberate deception, that it must be embarrassing for anyone who needs to make-out as if it is impartial.

Good luck with that.

What a joke Jack is and he has been exposed for his disgusting failure to perform with integrity and professionalism.

Give Jack the sack, he is a waste of space, he is unfit for the position of trust that he has abused.


.

 

He makes no bias evident. He instead makes his legal analysis transparent and his conclusions obvious. Those are both hallmarks of excellent scholarship.

I know it must really make you sad, but the report is brilliant. And it crushed forever any Birther hope of cooperation by the only body Constitutionally empowered to remove a sitting President; the Congress.

 

I will leave the readers to decide who is the joke, who is a disgusting failure and who has an obvious partisan bias.

Meanwhile, I will keep refering to the CRS, the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Congress, the voters, Chief Justice Roberts- you know- all of the people who understand better who is a Natural Born Citizen in the U.S. than Aussie Mike.

 

Here's an article that exposes the deliberate slimy deceit of Jack Maskell.

This is only a preliminery.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rn-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

.

 

Count the references to "law of nations".

Count the citations to Vattel. (Vat & Vatt)

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. DE LONGCHAMPS, 1 U.S. 111 (1784)

1 U.S. 111 (Dall.)

Respublica
v.
De Longchamps

Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia

October Sessions, 1784

http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/111/case.html

More evidence of the influence of Vattel and the Law of Nations on the framing period and thereafter.

Interesting video with some FACTS.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk"]The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - YouTube[/ame]


.

 

The voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you're wrong. That should tell you something. Do you know what that is?

 

Its worth repeating. And this:

From the CRS report:

"Those issues or “doubts” raised indictaby the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were,however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark , which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens”reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting theConstitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which theconcept was derived. The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of itsreasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen, and that the FourteenthAmendment merelyaffirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one bornon the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen"

Meanwhile it is always amusing to see how Birthers attack those who have the temerity to contradict Birther orthodoxies.

The CRS memo reflects what all Americans know- which is why the Court of Appeals of Indiana said the same thing, and why Chief Justice Roberts swore in President Obama.

Guess they taught it wrong in Australia Mike.

 

Too bad its from Leo Donofrio who so consistently errs in his understanding of the law that he is now staring down the barrel of a quarter million dollars in sanctions for one of the only two cases he has attempted in the last ten years. The other was, of course, his Birther fail in front of the Supreme Court.

It actually exposes nothing... since Donofrio is confusing testimony offered in the case with what the decision actually said. But then again, Donofrio also thinks he is God. That is not hyperbole. He actually does think that.

Go figure.

 

To bad they all have to do with international law, not municipal law. They have nothing to do with US citizenship law which is municipal.

Vattel was never once referenced favorably by a single Framer or Founder on any subject having to do with citizenship.

Never once.