CERTIFIGATE
Congressional staff gives Constitution new meaning
Researchers target 'eligibility,' say 'native born' really is 'natural born'
Posted: November 30, 2011
10:45 pm Eastern
 Barack Obama |
Shortly afterObamatook office, it wasCRS staffer Jerry W. Mansfield,an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group, who wrote a memo titled "Qualifications ofBarack Obamato BePresidentoftheUnitedStates" that seemed aimed at providing talking points for members of Congress whose constituents who were questioning the absence of documentation forObama.
Now comes the new campaign from CRS Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell,which seems to redefine eligibility, equating "native born" with the constitutional "natural born" citizen.
He cites the questions that have plaguedObamafrom before his 2008 election – the location of his birth and the status of his parents. The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and a common definition at the time the Constitution was written was an offspring of two citizen parents.
WhileObamahas released a purported "Certificate of Live Birth" fromHawaii, there are experts who have questioned whether it is genuine. Others say even if he was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible because his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of the birth. They argue the inclusion of "natural born" in the Constitution precluded dual citizens from occupying the Oval Office.
Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", which addresses Obama's Social Security Number, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore
The definition of the status was addressed in 1875 in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Minor v. Happersett, which concluded it was a child born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of location of the birth.
That decision said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
The current Supreme Court has avoided addressing the question directly, according to one of its members, by refusing to hear any of the dozens of cases that have been brought specifically on the question of the application of "natural born citizen" to a child whose father was a foreign national, whether he was born on U.S. soil or not.
But Maskell states that "the Supreme Court has never needed to address this particular issue within the specific context of a challenge to the eligibility of a candidate under Article II, Section 1, clause 5, the only place in the entire Constitution that the phrase appears."
He said that because the Supreme Court "has never needed to address this particular issue," there is "certain speculation on the scope of the language."
Corsi notes that Maskell simply advances the argument that "native born" is equivalent to "natural born" and that "being a 'U.S. citizen at birth' is equivalent to 'natural born citizen.'"
"The end result of Maskell's analysis is that ananchor babyborn to two illegal immigrants, or a baby born in 'birth tourism' to two foreign national parents and raised outside the United States would both be eligible to be president, provided the person was 35 years old and had spent 14 years as a resident living within the United States before running for president," Corsi writes.
"Maskell typically states as established fact legal principles that truthfully remain in dispute, for instance, on page 1 of the report, where he asserts that a person born 'in' the United States of one or more alien parents is 'clearly a U.S. citizen 'at birth' by the Fourteenth Amendment,'" Corsi continues.
"In so concluding, Maskell intentionally ignores the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' qualification with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment that opponents to anchorbabiesandbirth tourismfeel invalidates the entire concept that being born in the U.S. is sufficient to being deemed a 'U.S. citizen at birth,'" he says.
Corsi continues, "Similarly, Maskell wants to read English Common Law into the 'natural born citizen' requirement of Article 2, Section 1, because under English Common Law a 'natural bornsubject' is anyone born on English soil, a principle known as jussoli– a right conferred by place of birth – rather than jus sanguinis – a right conferred by blood, requiring an inquiry into the citizenship of the parents when a child is born."
He notes that Maskell, "in his pro-Obamaadvocacy," asserted the two-citizen parent requirement would "entail the unique notion that under American jurisprudence parental citizenship or lineage is the determining factor for eligibility to the presidency fornative bornU.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," Corsi says.
Maskell argues that "natural born" citizens probably were considered by the early members of Congress "to include more than merely the 'native born,' that is, those born in the country."
And he notes at the time of the Dredd Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming slavery, the U.S.attorney generalwrote, "I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship."
The Constitution, however, requires "natural born," not only "native born."
That's no problem, Maskell said, as various commentators, such as James Kent in his "Commentaries on American Law," equated the two terms.
And he said the U.S. Supreme Court did the same thing in an opinion, quoting, "We start with the premise that the rights of citizenship of thenative bornand of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president."
InObama's case, he says, "there is currently no requirement under federal law … for any federal candidate, that is, candidates to the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, of the office of president, to publish, produce, or release an official 'birth certificate.'"
He writes, "The initial burden of proof is always upon those who challenge a candidate's eligibility, and not on a candidate to 'prove' eligibility."
He continues by noting that "no official record" … is around that places "PresidentObama's mother in a foreign country at the time of the president's birth."
He also moves on to arguments that are thin, Corsi says, quoting the U.S.3rd Circuit Court of Appealsin the Kerchner v.Obamaeligibility case that "because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for appellants to show cause why just damages andcostsshould not be imposed."
However, in that case, when theKerchner side pointed outthat under the rules of the court, a threat of sanctions comes with a right to discovery regarding the allegations, the court retreated from its position.
That also happened in a previous case involvingGregory S. Hollister,who brought a challenge toObama's eligibility. A threat of sanctions was met with approval by Hollister'sattorney, because then he would have the right of discovery. Again, the court retreated.
Concludes Maskell, "Every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States … is anative bornU.S. citizen and thus a 'natural born citizen' eligible to be president … regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one's parents."
However, Maskell makes no reference to an effort by aChicagofirm led by anObamafundraiser toremove the "natural born citizen" requirement from the U.S. Constitution– a move that seems to betray doubt aboutObama's eligibility.
The article in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy stated: "Thenatural born citizenrequirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'decidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision.'"
She said "emotional" reasons were defeating attempts by "rational" arguments to remove it.
She was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm Kirkland & Ellis, where partner Bruce I. Ettelson cited his membership on the finance committee forObama. Her writings were available online under lawreviewarticlesfrom Kent University until afterWNDreported on the statements.
In the earlier memo by Mansfield, posted on Scribd.comfor download,he suggested questions raised aboutObama's eligibility have been conclusively dismissed as Internet falsehoods that are taking on mythical proportions.
Mansfield toldWNDthat he had written the memo to give to congressional constituents who were peppering congressional offices for a response to eligibility challenges.
WND also has reportedthat there have been at least eight attempts by members of Congress, during the past few years asObamawas developing his power base and running for president, to remove the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."
- Jeff Greenlee · Top Commenter · Arizona State UniversityWhen an obvious forged birth certificate and an invalid SSN 042-68-4425 cannot even pass E-Verify without coming back rejected, why would these complicit dopes have any problem messing with the "Natural Born" citizen part of the Constitution? Little Barry the Usurper is an enemy of the United States and must be prosecuted for high crimes and misdeameanors, including TREASON and SEDITION. May God continue to bless our great country. This is not going to end well.
- Joyce Perdue · Top Commenter · Niagara Falls, New YorkAnd no one even knows who this Impostor really is! He was shoved down our throats from day one. And how well I remember the simpering Americans by the millions with tears running down their pathetic faces when he was elected. Old Oprah was front and center! Well tears run now again down many faces of those who lost jobs and can't get another...those who haunt the soup kitchens. Yet the Bible says that no one gets into a position of authority like that unless God permits. We as a nation have rejected Him, and so He turned us over to this Impostor and now we see judgment has begun in earnest for a nation who has rejected the once God of America....Jesus Christ. May we repent before we are totally destroyed!
- Todd Olson · Top Commenter · Greeley, Colorado
- Dave Darnell · Top Commenter · Lakeview, Ohio
- Charles Kerchner · Top Commenter · PrivateConstitution Day 2011: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not!
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/ 2011/09/17/ is-being-a-born-citizen-of- the-united-states-sufficie nt-citizenship-status-to-b e-president-the-founders-a nd-framers-emphatically-de cided-it-was-not-by-cdr-ch arles-kerchner-ret/
Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http...See More- John McClain · Top Commenter · Oak Park and River Forest High SchoolAt best obama may be "a citizen of the United States", however every bit of evidence put forth so far has been proven to have been forged. When at least five different forged versions of a birth certificate have been produced by one man, does anyone really believe he has a legitimate one he just wants to keep private? Such an idea is so ridiculous as to be offensive to any rationality.
- Nick Jesch · Top CommenterFrom what I've seen, there is serious doubt as to whether he is even a citizen. Seems he was adopted by an INdonesian when a youth, had to have become a citizen of that nation to attend the schools he alledgedly attended there, and NO ONE has ever come up with any paper trail of how he regained his US citizenship. ALL his records are sealed, or destroyed. I hear rumour about foreign student scholarships and admission status to US universities. Seems he's very adept at gaming the system to get what HE wants... perks for being a foreign citizen, then grabs the presidency by stealth and no documents. Funny, too, how John Mc Cain, known to have been born in Panama, but of US citizen parents and on a US military base, wanted to toss his hat in the ring, HE had to come up before COngress and PROVE his status as natural born citizen. But the little half-black guy gets a pass? What, the whole nation is now forced into some sort of "affirmative action" game? No, those Framers knew what they were about. They deliberately guarded against anyone with possible foreign allegiance, or even strong blood connexions, becomeing the Commander in Chief of our military forces. Congressmen, well, that's another story altogether, as no one of them wields much power. But the President? And, now having watched this pretender in action these three or so years, we know WHY the Framers made the gate so strait.
- Peter Ramsey · Top Commenter · Artist at My Flying SaucerObama can run but he cannot hide - he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject born in Kenya. The Founders wisely asserted in the Constitution that the President must be a natural born citizen because they feared the British would run a Tory to subvert the gains of the 1776 revolution.
Ironically, that is exactly what Obama is trying to do by forcing socialist policies on the American people.- Tim Shea · Top Commenter
- Jim Michael Youngblood · Top Commenter
- Don Schiffgens · Top CommenterIf Liberals aren't following the Constitution, they interpret it or changie it to suit whatever twisted agenda they so happen to be pushing. Why would anyone spend over a million dollars to hide his records? He's been in office for over three years and I still don't know much aboout the man, except for the fact that he's a socialist and is deliberately destroying the economy.
- Ron A. Harms · Top Commenter · Whatsamatta U
- Chris Farrell · Top Commenter · New Orleans, LouisianaTim Shea The majority do not necessarily elect a president; it is the electoral college that decides. We have a Federal Republic and I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- Barry Levy · Top Commenter · Los Angeles, CaliforniaTim Shea If he told people exactly what he wanted to do, he would never had been elected. If the lame stream media had vetted him with the same gusto that they did Sarah Palin and others, he would never have been elected.
And we don't need a man who's body of friends are anti-American, and have expressed interest in harming this country.
One is eventually really knows by the friends that one keeps.
- Glenn Cook · Top Commenter · Oregon Institute of TechnologyIf that birth certificate were real, why all this commotion? Also between sherriff Joe's case and boehner having to certificate Obama for next round (that is sure to be a treat) this is about to take a very stormy turn. Buckles up!
- Charles Kerchner · Top Commenter · PrivateTo Atty Jack Maskell, of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the master of the false premise in his efforts to protect Obama in his writings for Congress:
Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/ obama-maybe-citizen-of-unit ed-states.html The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.
Five Citizenship...See More - Jim Michael Youngblood · Top CommenterDr. Herb Titus: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqeV0ZlZ1Cw - Ed Born · Top CommenterNha Hang Thanh Obama Senior did not need to be a natural born citizen himself. If he had become a naturalized US citizen before Obama Junior was born, then Obama Junior (assuming a birth in Hawaii) would be a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents).
The US Supreme Court, in the 1939 case of Perkins v. Elg, affirmed Marie Elg to be a natural born citizen. Marie was born in NY in 1907 to Swedish immigrant parents who became naturalized US citizens in 1906. Hence, Marie was born in the country to citizen parents. - Jill Walker · Top Commenter
- Chris Farrell · Top Commenter · New Orleans, LouisianaEIGHT QUESTIONS FOR DR. JEROME CORSI,
1. Dr. Corsi, Following the first Gulf War, Gen. Shwarzkopf (sp?) said in an interview that, and I paraphrase from memory, his 'biggest fear was not that Saddam had the capability of delivering a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, but that he had one pre-positioned in a hole in the desert somewhere with a soldier, radio or land-line in hand, waiting for the order to detonate as American troops moved over the area.'
According to the generals intelligence then, at that time, 'Stormin' Norman' could not rule out the possibility that Saddam already had in his possession a nuke. We already know that Saddam used gas against the Kurdish villages in the North of Iraq - a weapon of mass destruction - so the question as to whether or not he was in possession of such weapons is a moot point.
...See More- Sheila Demus · Subscribe · Top CommenterI just want to add that a General of Saddam who is a Christian came to Faith Center Church in Rockford, IL a few years ago and told a story that Saddam was planning on nuking the U.S. and that Saddam was one year away from his goal and that Saddam had sent in humanitarian planes supposedly to get people out of an area that flooded, but, instead had taken out the seats and turned them into cargo planes and filled the planes with barrels of biological weapons and flew them out of the country....This General was Christian and did not want to work for Saddam but was forced. He told a story of how he was ordered to stay over night in one of Saddam's bunker apartments and how he could not sleep. So, he got up and walked out to go visit someone and as he was walking away the place exploded. We had sent a missile from one our ships in t...See More
- Carlos Ramos · Top Commenter · CSU FullertonMOOT POINT? Are you stupid or what moron? First idiot please define "NUKE" You have no conception as to what you are proposing much less to be in a position to render that historical decision moot - Who the hell are you? YOu werent there and I was -- It is not important that I educate you on how very wrong your stupid position is but to tell you that the point is MOOT - You are completely wrong and the evidence is so close to you that you fail to see it -- Stay stupid
- David A Blodgett · Top Commenter
- Jim Michael Youngblood · Top CommenterProtecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Error and Disinformation Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blo gspot.com/2011/11/ congressional-research-serv ice-releases.html
Read more:Congressional staff gives Constitution new meaninghttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=373085#ixzz1fJN4e4q4
Read more:Congressional staff gives Constitution new meaninghttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=373085#ixzz1fJMqXB9q
No comments:
Post a Comment