I wonder if Mr. Maskell's memo meets Leo's new standards for comments on his blog...

I know we don't like to get too involved in sending stuff to the lawyers having to deal with birther cases, but if a case comes up where it seems appropriate to offer assistance, this would be a great document to send. I'd love to see a birther lawyer's head explode if a judge were to, say, take Judicial Notice of it's contents

I wonder if Mr. Maskell's memo meets Leo's new standards for comments on his blog...

I think it should be spread far and wide, particularly to the Elections Board of every State in the Nation. Personally Imma gonna post it all over da place.

The Congressional Research Service releases another error-ridden 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 Happersett v. Minor. 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.) [26859]

Predictably, Maskell misinterprets and misstates the Supreme Court cases United States v. Kim Wong Ark and Happersett v. Minor.

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.) [26859]

By which she means "quotes them directly, correctly, and accurately"


Ah, so she overlooked the part where Maskell not only cited the French version, but an EARLIER English translation that was different from the post-Constitution version the birthers cling to?

(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?

From Pammie's diatribe:
Memo to Pammie: What Maskill is saying here is that nothing in the Constitution or controlling American case law supports birther contentions that the citizenship of one's parents has anything to do with one's eligibility to be President.Memo to Pammie: Here Maskill is referring to the fact that Wong Kim Ark made the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens settled law over a century ago.Memo to Pammie: How have you managed to get this far in life without being learning to read?

I was thinking the same thing.

This is a highly misleading study by Maskill. Misleading to the point that you have to question his interest in truth as opposed to an agenda. Truth be told, I don't know how the Supreme Court would fall on this issue. It would likely be split and depend on the make up of the Court at the time. But this study tries to hide the fact that there is a debate on this. It also misrepresents the Minor case in terms of it's precedent of the American Common Law definition of NBC as one born in the US to citizen parents. An interesting point, this study was done before it was discovered the Justia, and several other legal research sites, were suppressing the Minor case and altering the composition of this debate.

So, Dr. C, you won’t name the source? Wouldn’t that be public information anyway? And how did you even know to ask for it?

And you must admit, the timing of the report is rather remarkable considering the new flurry of activity over on Turley’s blog. I also keep getting the feeling that I have seen some of the new text of Maskell’s memo someplace before…

Ed
Nov 29, 2011 - 4:35PM

Re: Congressional Research Service on NBC

It really does not matter any more since Obama ass is toast is 2012. he has screwed too many and they will vote him out by a landslide. He is the worst president this country has ever had. I don't care who runs agaisnt him, he is beat. oh btw, we are under English law uh. I knew he would get us over there.

State : Texas

Freepers are not handling this well

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2813999/posts

The ObFreep thread.

"This CRS report is the very first time anyone has claimed the M v H ruling specifics as dicta."

I’m going out on a limb here. . . elect me president and I will BAR (hee hee) attorneys from serving in the State and Federal houses of Congress. Only the judicial branch is where they belong.