The Maskell Congressional Research Service Fraud

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/us-attorney-general-cushing-made-clear-that-citizens-and-subjects-were-not-the-same-under-us-law

Garrett Papit:  Attorney General Cushing made clear that Citizens and Subjects were NOT the same under US law.

I’ll quote Minor v Happersett – “In 1856, the question came before the Attorney General, Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were entitled to the privilege of preempting our public lands. He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the act.”

Now I’ll quote Leo Donofrio: “According to US Attorney General Cushing, a “subject” is not a “citizen”. Therefore, “natural born Citizen” cannot mean the same thing as “natural born Subject”. Attorney General Cushing determined that domestic subjects were not entitled to the same rights as US citizens because “subjects” are not “citizens”. And a “natural born subject” has never meant the same thing as “natural born Citizen”. Never. That’s a complete fraud.

Garrett Papit:
Steven Feinstein – this memo straight out LIES about the Kwok Jan Fat v. White case. The petitioners parents were BOTH citizens and yet the memo makes it sound as if they were BOTH aliens. Then it uses that false pretense to claim that, since they called the petitioner a ‘natural born’ citizen, that someone born here to aliens is also a ‘natural born’ citizen. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest magnitude.

Steven Feinstein :
Garrett Papit, First, unless I missed it, there was no mention of the citizenship status of the mother. And it is very clear the Court did not rely upon the citizenship status of either parent when making its decision. As such Maskell’s analysis is dead on correct. I really wish that Birthers would understand how to analyze a case.

Garrett Papit:
Steven Feinstein – the facts are the facts. The court specifically took notice of the fact that his father was a native citizen. His mother was also a citizen via the Derivative Citizenship Statute.

So again, we have someone born in the US to two citizen parents being called a natural born citizen. Your suggestion that the Court did not RELY on reality is absurd. They clearly mentioned that the father was a citizen so that was obviously relevant. Furthermore, the Court knew that the mother was a citizen simply because the father was. Sorry, your rebuttal is an epic fail.

And regardless of whether you THINK the Court relied on the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. The fact is that this CRS memo twists the case to make it seem as if BOTH parents were aliens. You yourself can’t deny that is an UTTER LIE.

I really wish anti-birthers would learn to fairly represent a case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the Maskell memo, case law is irrelevant.  What is at the heart of the matter is the question of the central principle followed in producing all that case law.  Was it a legitimate principle or an illegitimate principle?  The answer can be found in that which answers the question: “By what principle is John McCain a natural born citizen?”
That is a question you refuse to answer or acknowledge because the answer destroys the legitimacy of all that case law that you worship.
What was the principle by which the Congressional legal team determined that it doesn’t matter where on earth a natural citizen is born?  Jus Sanguinis.

Garrett Papit: Steven Feinstein – you must be slightly challenged…or are extremely disingenuous…I vote for a combination thereof.
“NATURAL” in this case, as defined by BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, means that it doesn’t come about via positive enactment of any man made law or statue. Now please tell me what group of people doesn’t need ANY statute to confer citizenship on them?

Second of all, these cases were acknowledging that the concept of natural born subject hood is useful in understanding that those born on US soil were born citizens. But again, NEVER did it say that subject and citizens are equal under US law and NEVER did it say that all born citizens are also A2S1 natural born citizens as required for POTUS eligibility. IN FACT NONE OF THESE CASES HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH POTUS ELIGIBILITY!!!! ARE YOU DAFT!?

Again, US Attorney General Cushing made it clear that citizens and subjects were NOT the same under US law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Feinstein, you say Donofrio “refused” to debate you?  Do you even know what the word “refused” means?  Not stooping to respond to an emotional child is not a “refusal” to debate that child.  If one wrestles in the mud with a pig, both get dirty but the pig loves it.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=372977&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150427388735279_19960618_10150428101615279&ref=notif&notif_t=open_graph_comment#fcbc4d095334fe

From there, Maskell wants us to conclude that requirements of “lineage or bloodline” are not required “for a native born U.S. citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.”

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.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defining ‘Anosognosia’
By Burt Prelutsky (Archive) · Saturday, October 22, 2011

Although, as a rule, I prefer avoiding using words in my articles that will send most normal people scurrying for their dictionary, I only recently came across “anosognosia” and I felt I should share it because it so perfectly describes the mental condition of liberals. It is the total unawareness of one’s own disease, disability or defect. So when we find ourselves asking why leftists think and act as they do, apparently living in a fantasy world totally disconnected from reality, at least we now know there’s a word that defines it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers

%d bloggers like this: