Main Menu

New Congressional report on presidential eligibility

The Congressional Research Service has completed a new report on the question of what “natural born citizen” means in the context of the Article II qualifications for the President of the United States.

The Congressional Research Service is a part of the Library of Congress, providing professional, objective and non-partisan public policy research to members of Congress and their staffers. CRS reports by constitutional attorney Jack Maskell, the author of this report, have been featured on this web site before. I’m sure that my readers will be much more interested in what the report says than what I say about it, so without further introduction, the report is presented. I can anticipate a lively discussion to follow.

Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

, , ,

199 Responses to New Congressional report on presidential eligibility

  1. avatar
    Paul November 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    Exactly as I have always argued. A “natural born citizen” is any citizen who did not have to be natural-IZED for citizenship.

  2. avatar
    Reality Check November 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    I hope someone has time to compare this with previous versions. The section on Minor says what sane people have been saying all along that the SCOTUS said in Minor they didn’t need to address the status of children of aliens born on US soil but that WKA addressed it directly.

  3. avatar
    bovril November 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Page 22 specifically raises then slams a stake into the heart of the whole Vattelist pieces of cack.

  4. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen November 29, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    An excellent, comprehensive analysis. It pretty much destroys every silly birther legal meme in a definitive fashion. If I were the Government and was faced with a substantive challenge, I’d do a lot of cutting and pasting from the Report to my brief. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel.

  5. avatar
    ballantine November 29, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    It is very good. Much better than his last paper. Birthers will love it. He doesn’t make the argument that Wong Kim Ark is precedent like I have made but pretty much gets everything else right. Gets Minor right. Such is dicta that fails to address children of aliens:

    “In one early Supreme Court case after Dred Scott ,the Court narrowly applied the earlier theory of citizenship in Dred Scott (as being only the original community of people who ratified the Constitution and their progeny),129and relied instead on the common law to discuss the concept of citizenship in the United States after the original generation of citizens. The Court noted that those children born on the soil of the United States to citizen-parents would clearly be among those who are “natural born” citizens under the common law, but didn’t rule or hold that such category of citizenship was exclusive to such children.130The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett , in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case….Those issues or “doubts” raised by the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were, however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark … The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, 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 Fourteenth Amendment merely affirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one born on the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen…”

    Maskell completely dismisses Vattel with arguments that could have been taken from Fogbow:

    “It may be noted that some have argued that the relevant common meaning of natural born citizen that was prevalent in 18th century America should not be the one that was actually applicable int he American colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and which was adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776 (and which, as noted by Justice Story, formed the “foundation” for American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as derived from what has been described as a “philosophical treatise” on the law of nations by a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term “natural born citizens.” It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include, in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787. Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of Vattel on the framers in employing the term “natural born” in relation to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is highly speculative at best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis within American jurisprudence. Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the FederalConvention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress),there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787,and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of thestate ratifying conventions.

    It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S.Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation,a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law. In a state case cited with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, an extensive legal analysis of the question of natural born citizenship under the law of the United States by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in New York in 1844, found that the laws in all of the American colonies, and then in all of the states after independence, followed the English common law principles of jus soli, that is, that birth in the territory governed citizenship at birth, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents.106Sandford found that it would be“inconceivable” that the framers, in drafting the Constitution, would abandon without explicit comment or explanation in the document, the existing law in all of the colonies, and then in all of the states, of who were natural born citizens in favor of an “international” or “natural” law theory of citizenship by “descent” (through one’s father), an argument pressed by one of the litigants relying, in part, on Vattel. Addressing specifically the question of the use of the term “natural born citizen” in the federal Constitution as one of the qualifications for President, Vice Chancellor Sandford found the following:It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle that prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union…. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section that defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of natural born citizen,was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes,should have intended to subvert the long-established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change.

    The treatise in question by Emmerich de Vattel was a work concerning the “law of nations,”which we would now classify generally as “international law.” However, the concept of citizenship within a particular country is one governed not by international law or law of nations, but rather is governed by municipal law, that is, the internal law of each country.108Vattel’swritings on citizenship by “descent” reflected in many circumstances what the law or practice may have been in certain European nations at the time—that is, that citizenship followed the nationality or citizenship of one’s father, as opposed to the place of birth.109This concept,although prevalent on the European Continent was, even as expressly noted in Vattel’s work itself, clearly not the law in England or thus the American colonies,110and clearly was not the concept and common understanding upon which U.S. law was based. James Madison, often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” expressly explained in the House of Representatives in the First Congress, in 1789, that with regard to citizenship the “place” of birth,and not “parentage” was the controlling concept adopted in the United States.111Additionally, the Supreme Court in 1971 simply and succinctly explained, after citing historical legal precedent:“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”112Again in 1998, the Supreme Court expressly recognized jus soli, the place of birth,as controlling in the United States, noting that in this country “citizenship does not pass by descent” except as provided by Congress in statute.113

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    I am particularly grateful for this paper. As you know, there are dozens of articles on the topic here on my blog (along with excellent comments by you and others), with many references and arguments. I have felt somewhat guilty that I haven’t taken the time put it all together in a comprehensive document. Now Mr. Maskell has done it, and done it far better than I could hope to do. Now, when the question arises, I just have to paste the Scribd URL and add “’nuff said.”

    ballantine: It is very good. Much better than his last paper. Birthers will love it. He doesn’t make the argument that Wong Kim Ark is precedent like I have made but pretty much gets everything else right. Gets Minor right.

  7. avatar
    Middle Molly November 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm #

    This is an excellent, thorough analysis of this issue, but, let’s face it, no matter who writes what about this issue or how many times it is written, there is a vocal minority (up to 10%, depending on the various polls) who will continue to beat this very, very dead (and rotting) horse.

  8. avatar
    Scientist November 29, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Middle Molly: This is an excellent, thorough analysis of this issue, but, let’s face it, no matter who writes what about this issue or how many times it is written, there is a vocal minority (up to 10%, depending on the various polls) who will continue to beat this very, very dead (and rotting) horse.

    They won’t cause any problems for Obama, since none of them would vote for him regardless of who his father is. However, they could potentially cause trouble for the Republicans, because they have good reason to consider nominating Marco Rubio as VP, both to help in Florida and with Hispanic voters nationwide. And that 10% are their base voters. If they stay home, it’s ball game over,

  9. avatar
    Judge Mental November 29, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Excellent and better than the first one. Unfortunately, it is extremely doubtful whether more than a comparative handful of those already convinced that the President is ineligible are unlikely to be able to comprehend the content let alone be prepared to accept its veracity and accuracy even if they did comprehend it.

  10. avatar
    Scientist November 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    I particularly appreciated the extensive discussion of the motivation behind the clause (as much as is known about it). It was very clear that the intent was to exclude foreign nobility and royalty, who might serve as proxy for foreign sovereigns. It is not at all clear that the original intent was to exclude ordinary immigrants, and perhaps the phrase “natural born citizen” was poorly chosen.

  11. avatar
    Joey November 29, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    Second round of birthstani ad hominem attacks on Maskell for being an Obot begin in…one, two, three….

  12. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    I liked that he referenced the Madison quote on birth place and parentage. But did I miss a mention of William Rawle’s statement.

  13. avatar
    ballantine November 29, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    gorefan: I liked that he referenced the Madison quote on birth place and parentage. But did I miss a mention of William Rawle’s statement.

    He included Rawle on page 46. He didn’t miss much.

  14. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    ballantine: He didn’t miss much.

    I need to remember to use the scribd search feature. He does seem to have reviewed all of the birther talking points and debunked them. I suspect he his going to get a lot of responses that include a number of references to Ex Parte Lockwood.

  15. avatar
    G November 29, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

    Same here!

    I was particularly impressed with this particular paper.

    Not only did it confirm everything we’ve been pointing out for over the past three years, but it comprehensively addressed and tackled even tangentially-related issues, such as providing the case law and reasoning on issues of applying NBC to US citizens born abroad and establishing the NBC status of “anchor babies”.

    I was quite impressed how most of the birther myths were tackled and struck down forcefully and with well-sourced footnotes:

    -The validity of BOTH of Obama’s HI BC documents was confirmed, as was the confirmation that EVERY state MUST accept those documents as proof of federal ballot eligibility under FFAC.

    -That there is NO credible contrary evidence to the official HI birth records of Obama.

    -That issues such as citizenship status of parents have NO impact on NBC status for those born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

    -That other nations claims or a person’s claims of “dual citizenship” have NO impact on citizenship status of US citizens and that US sovereignity and our own laws prevail.

    -Completely busting the whole “Indonesian” adoption myth and confirming that minors cannot lose their NBC status in such circumstances.

    -That re: making challenges to eligibility:

    the legal presumption is always of eligibility, and thus the initial burden of proof is always upon those who challenge a candidate’s eligibility, and not on a candidate to “prove” eligibility

    and..


    the clear burden of proof must be upon those who challenge a federal candidate’s eligibility

    Finally, the report does an excellent job in emphasizing over and over again, for ALL of these points that the laws and court findings on such matters are fairly extensive and in many cases have been established precedent in our country for a long, long time.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am particularly grateful for this paper. As you know, there are dozens of articles on the topic here on my blog (along with excellent comments by you and others), with many references and arguments. I have felt somewhat guilty that I haven’t taken the time put it all together in a comprehensive document. Now Mr. Maskell has done it, and done it far better than I could hope to do. Now, when the question arises, I just have to paste the Scribd URL and add “’nuff said.”

  16. avatar
    Sallyven November 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    Thanks for posting this, Dr. C. I am curious, how did you obtain it? And do you know, who requested the CRS to prepare it?

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    I got the document from a congressional source. You can obtain a copy from your congressman too. I don’t have any information about who requested it be prepared.

    Sallyven: Thanks for posting this, Dr. C. I am curious, how did you obtain it? And do you know, who requested the CRS to prepare it?

  18. avatar
    Observer November 29, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    Prediction: Birthers wiu charge that the CRS Report is a forgery.

  19. avatar
    john November 29, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    Obama is definitely fighting back since the report is quite recent and that complaints are starting to pop up all over the place. But, bare [sic] in mind, this is just one lawyer’s argument. Only a court can really give a settled answer on the issue.

    The Congressional Research Service is a part of the legislative branch of government, not the executive. [Doc]

  20. avatar
    Sallyven November 29, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    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…

  21. avatar
    gorefan November 29, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Now, when the question arises, I just have to paste the Scribd URL and add “’nuff said.”

    A link for this study should be sent to the SOS of the 50 States, so they can just cite it and deny the various waste of time challenges.

  22. avatar
    Joey November 29, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    birtherreport.com is mentioning another ballot challenge to Obama’s eligiblity has been filed in Alabama, where every elected state official is a Republican.

  23. avatar
    SluggoJD November 29, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    Sallyven:
    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…

    An alien beamed down and told Bigfoot about the pending report. Bigfoot squealed right before Ed Hale, that World Famous Bigfoot Hunter and Murderer, killed him. Ed Hale can’t keep his mouth shut about anything, which is how it spread all over the internets, and came to the attention of someone at Congress, who told Dr. C.

    So don’t blame Dr. C, blame the aliens.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Folks send me tips all the time. When they do, I respect their privacy.

    As for any other speculation, I really don’t know anything about the report beyond what’s in it.

    Sallyven: 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…

  25. avatar
    bob November 29, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    john: Obama is definitely fighting back since the report is quite recent and that complaints are starting to pop up all over the place. But, bare [sic] in mind, this is just one lawyer’s argument. Only a court can really give a settled answer on the issue.The Congressional Research Service is a part of the legislative branch of government, not the executive. [Doc]

    A lawyer whose job is to advise Congress. Your qualifications are what, exactly?

    And the Indiana Court of Appeals — a real court — has given an answer.

  26. avatar
    JD Reed November 29, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    John, John, John … “Just one lawyer’s argument”? Not just any lawyer, by any means, but one with the professional credentials and prestige to be tapped to write such a report for a member of Congress. Certainly, head, shoulders and chest above a dogbite lawyer, a pro poker playing lawyer, a DUI lawyer, and most of all, a Soviet-born
    online correspondence school lawyer who never wins a case.
    Prediction: This report will cut through the BS in court cases, birther legislatiive initiatives and challenges before elections commissions such as in New Hampshire. One-stop shopping, as it were.

  27. avatar
    bob November 29, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    @S(ally)ven:

    The CRS report may be found here:

    http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

  28. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    Joey:
    birtherreport.com is mentioning another ballot challenge to Obama’s eligiblity has been filed in Alabama, where every elected state official is a Republican.

    That’s Al Hendershot, the bill collector who doesn’t understand how database work.. Republican or not it’s a non-starter.

  29. avatar
    JD Reed November 30, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    John, forgot to mention one other birther lawyer, the one who started it all after surfacing first as a truther in the aftermath of 9-11, and then cited “internet rumors” and the utterly falsehood that Americans were under a travel ban to Pakistan in summer 1981. Another midget, compared to the Congressional Research lawyer.

  30. avatar
    GeorgetownJD November 30, 2011 at 12:31 am #

    Joey:
    birtherreport.com is mentioning another ballot challenge to Obama’s eligiblity has been filed in Alabama, where every elected state official is a Republican.

    It is rather unfortunate that Al did not consult the Code of Alabama for the how-to’s of ballot challenges in that state. He might have learned the proper way to do it and that he will be expected to post cash security in order for the contest to be heard.

  31. avatar
    The Magic M November 30, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    ballantine [quoting CRS memo]: It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S.Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation,a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law.

    Pretty much what I’ve been telling Vattelists for years. 🙂

  32. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2011 at 5:21 am #

    Sallyven: So, Dr. C, you won’t name the source?

    Should privacy and anonymity be respected “SALLYVEN??

  33. avatar
    AnotherBird November 30, 2011 at 7:16 am #

    Majority Will: Should privacy and anonymity be respected “SALLYVEN??

    Sallywen knows that the issue is the report, and not Dr. C’s source. Sallyven just wants something to pick on instead of attempting to verify the authenticity of the document. Anyways, pointing out the irony is brilliant.

  34. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    AnotherBird: Sallywen knows that the issue is the report, and not Dr. C’s source. Sallyven just wants something to pick on instead of attempting to verify the authenticity of the document. Anyways, pointing out the irony is brilliant.

    The birther’s tone and not so subtle implications are annoying.

    To wit: “And you must admit, the timing of the report is rather remarkable . . .”

    Must admit? Remarkable timing? That’s the propensity of the small-minded to spread fear and invent conspiracy. Birthers seem to be incapable of grasping the concept of credible evidence.

    P.S. And thanks. These weasels are an endless fountain of irony. Funny, sad and bizarre.

  35. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 8:33 am #

    Sallyven:
    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…

    Sallyven,

    I have a couple of points to make. First, regarding your feeling that you have seen some of the text before, I happened to run across this excerpt of the report from Fogbow which is currently covering the topic:

    ****
    This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in theoriginal French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term “natural born citizens.
    ****
    I remember seeing that phrase before because the words “theoriginal” were run together as they are at Fogbow when I read them. Fogbow is merely quoting the report- which does not have the words run together ( I am sure it was thoroughly proofread). I think where I saw the phrase was probably from something Lupin, a commenter here who is a French lawyer, used, because he has often discussed Vattel. In any case, I think that Mr. Maskell was probably researching from the same sources as everyone else who has studied the issue. This is from Wiki:

    However, in a passage analyzing its own liability under United States copyright law, the CRS has written that its works may contain copyrighted information, but that these excerpts are always “appropriately credited”:

    “CRS may incorporate preexisting material in its written responses to congressional requests. Although such material is often from public domain sources, in certain instances the material, appropriately credited, may be from copyrighted sources. To the extent that the material is copyrighted, CRS either: obtains permission for the use; considers its information-gathering function protected by the speech or debate clause; or believes that the use falls under the “fair use” doctrine of the Copyright Act as applied in the context of the legislative process.”

    ***
    But what really piqued my curiosity (as it did for you but maybe not for the same reasons) is who requested the report and who leaked it?

    (From Wiki) CRS adds that:

    “Although CRS obtains permission to reproduce certain copyrighted works, the permissions are generally based on legislative use and the expectation that dissemination is limited to Members of Congress.”

    Also:

    While some CRS research and reports may reach the American public, the policy of CRS is to not make them directly available to members of the public; instead, they are “leaked” to the public at the discretion of congressional clients.[11] There have been several attempts to pass legislation requiring all reports to be made available online, most recently in 2003, but none have passed. (*gee, I wonder why…)

    Instead, the public must request individual reports from their Senators and Representatives in Congress, purchase them from private vendors, or search for them in various web archives of previously-released documents.

    ****
    Although it is possible Mr. Maskell may have a personal interest in the topic, he can’t use his salary to work on a lengthy paper just to satisfy his own intellectual need. If the birther issue is the joke of the century, whether it be the two parent theory or the birthplace of Obama, who cares enough to request a report? My first thought is Marco Rubio. I just don’t see Jindal as seriously considering the Presidency now. Marco Rubio recently took some heat for some alleged inconsistencies in the story of his early life. Is he attempting to get the citizenship issue out of the way now to avoid any further controversy?

    If you are interested, maybe you could contact Mr. Maskell to see if he’ll give you any kind of information. Although you won’t get any information on who made the request, you may get some kind of answers. The leaked report does state: Author Contact Information. Nothing written is supposed to be classified in these reports.

  36. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Majority Will: To wit: “And you must admit, the timing of the report is rather remarkable . . .”

    There is a very good chance that the report was commissioned by a Republican, possibly a Cuban-American from Florida, in anticipation of the possible choice of Marco Rubio as VP. Congress has already pronounced Obama eligiible, but has yet to speak regarding Rubio.

  37. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    charo: My first thought is Marco Rubio

    My first thought was members of the tea party caucus, who are probably being inundated by birther inquiries as to why they are not obeying their oaths of office and working to remove the usurper. Especially in light of their belief in the “binding precedent” set by Minor.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    When cutting and pasting from a PDF, words at the ends of lines will appear to have no spaces between them and the first word on the next line. I deal with this all the time. For example, when ballentine posted a lengthy excerpt from the report, there were 20-30 missing spaces (which I fixed). There was one example in the report of an extra space in the middle of a word and if you saw that somewhere else, you might think that the two shared a source.

    charo: I remember seeing that phrase before because the words “theoriginal” were run together as they are at Fogbow when I read them.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Given the number of people to have claimed mass congressional contacts on behalf of the birther cause, I would surmise that the CRS receives many inquiries on the topic.

    charo: Although it is possible Mr. Maskell may have a personal interest in the topic, he can’t use his salary to work on a lengthy paper just to satisfy his own intellectual need. If the birther issue is the joke of the century, whether it be the two parent theory or the birthplace of Obama, who cares enough to request a report?

  40. avatar
    bob November 30, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Also, as noted, the CRS report is available on Legistorm, a pay site:

    http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

    It would have been very easy for someone to have downloaded it from there, and then passed it on to Doc (for free).

    As for why the report was generated, if the past is any indicator, Congress will continue to receive inquiries about eligibility (specifically Obama) for the upcoming election. Now Congress has something that will answer every question asked.

  41. avatar
    sfjeff November 30, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    I just love this report.

    Not that it will make any difference to the die hard Birthers- who I have already seen slander.

    Hmmm I wonder if Jack Maskell might sue someone for slander(or libel- which is written?)- he is not a public figure- this document was not written for public distribution- and he is an attorney.

    I really would like to see some of the more vile Birthers sued for spouting lies against individuals simply because they had the temerity to refute Birther lies.

  42. avatar
    Lupin November 30, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    ballantine: to include, in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite

    “creative translation” is to translation was “competitive shopping” with pepper spray is to shopping.

  43. avatar
    Chris November 30, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Could someone please post a PDF of this CRS Report. Thanks in advance.

  44. avatar
    bob November 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Chris:
    Could someone please post a PDF of this CRS Report.Thanks in advance.

    It is embedded at the top of this post. Push the “download” button and it will create a printable PDF.

  45. avatar
    ballantine November 30, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    I loved the “creative translation of the French” line. Maskell didn’t miss much.

  46. avatar
    Jamese777 November 30, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    The new Congressional Research Report is a follow-up to the original report from April 3, 2009, also written by Jack Maskell. The original report was requested by Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of San Diego, CA.
    Congressman Bilbray asked for the original report in order to better respond to his constituents’ concerns about Barack Obama’s eligiblity.
    Congressman BIlbray represents the district that I live in.
    Whether Congressman Bilbray also requested the new report, I don’t know.

  47. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 30, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    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.

  48. avatar
    Mitch November 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate:
    As someone with 28 years experience in the Congressional Research Service (I retired 10 years ago), here’s a few observations:

    Thanks; that’s very interesting.

  49. avatar
    Joey November 30, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    Thanks 1% Silver Nitrate! Any idea, based on your experience whether a member of Congress might have requested the new report like Congressman Bilbray did the original?
    It really shut the birthers down when they found out that a Republican had asked the CRS to look into the eligibility issue.

  50. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    When cutting and pasting from a PDF, words at the ends of lines will appear to have no spaces between them and the first word on the next line. I deal with this all the time. For example, when ballentine posted a lengthy excerpt from the report, there were 20-30 missing spaces (which I fixed). There was one example in the report of an extra space in the middle of a word and if you saw that somewhere else, you might think that the two shared a source.

    I remembered the context, not just the two words. I don’t read many sites that deal with the specific Vattel issue. This site pretty much summarizes what is out there.

  51. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 30, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Joey: Thanks 1% Silver Nitrate! Any idea, based on your experience whether a member of Congress might have requested the new report like Congressman Bilbray did the original?It really shut the birthers down when they found out that a Republican had asked the CRS to look into the eligibility issue.

    Based on my experience, I’d say this is an “anticipatory report.” The subject-area analyst or powers-that-be within CRS anticipate that a large number of inquiries will be received by CRS to justify preparing a report that covers all aspects of a topic. With reports like this, CRS doesn’t need to have any member of Congress making a particular request, only that a (presumably large) number of requests on the topic are expected & that a pre-prepared report suitable for answering many of those requests would be appropriate.
    Incidently, are you sure that Congressman Bilbray was the requester for the orginal? The April 2009 general distribution memo lacks a To line (eg, To: The Honorable Brian P Bilbray), a memo prepared specifically for him would have the To line) If the specific To line is lacking on the copy you’ve seen, & it has that April 3, 2009 date, then the likelihood is that he wasn’t the first to request a response, but was only another recipient of CRS’s boilerplate response.

  52. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    charo: I remembered the context, not just the two words.I don’t read many sites that deal with the specific Vattel issue.This site pretty much summarizes what is out there.

    Charo, excuse my confusion but, what exactly are you asking?

    Are you asking if Mr. Maskell has visited this site as part of his research? Or are you saying that he copied parts of his report from somewhere else without crediting it?

    If the latter, can you cite the same passage from another source? Or is it just the ideas in this passage that you believe are shared?

  53. avatar
    Obsolete November 30, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Great stuff, 1% Silver Nitrate!
    Get ready for the inevitable birther question for the CRS:
    “Were you bought off, threatened, or have you always hated America?”

  54. avatar
    Joey November 30, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: Based on my experience, I’d say this is an “anticipatory report.”The subject-area analyst or powers-that-be within CRS anticipate that a large number of inquiries will be received by CRS to justify preparing a report that covers all aspects of a topic.With reports like this, CRS doesn’t need to have any member of Congress making a particular request, only that a (presumably large) number of requests on the topic are expected & that a pre-prepared report suitable for answering many of those requests would be appropriate.
    Incidently, are you sure that Congressman Bilbray was the requester for the orginal?The April 2009 general distribution memo lacks a To line (eg, To: The Honorable Brian P Bilbray), a memo prepared specifically for him would have the To line)If the specific To line is lacking on the copy you’ve seen, & it has that April 3, 2009 date, then the likelihood is that he wasn’t the first to request a response, but was only another recipient of CRS’s boilerplate response.

    Of course I’m 100% certain that Brian Bilbray ordered the original CRS report. I read it from numerous highly credible sources: the Post & Email, WorldNetDaily, the Birtherreport, freerepublic.com and drkatesview.
    Worldnetdaily’s article “How Congress Was Prepped to Dismiss ‘Birthers’ states that “The memo was addressed to Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and sent to Jeffrey Post, a staff member in the congressman’s office.”

    Read more: How Congress was prepped to dismiss ‘birthers’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=226697#ixzz1fDmhTF7C

    These are all highly reliable sources of information on all things related to Obama’s eligibility and none of them have EVER published misinformation! 😉

  55. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    gorefan: Charo,excuse my confusion but, what exactly are you asking?

    Are you asking if Mr. Maskell has visited this site as part of his research?Or are you saying that he copied parts of his report from somewhere else without crediting it?

    If the latter, can you cite the same passage from another source?Or is it just the ideas in this passage that you believe are shared?

    I didn’t ask a question but responded to Sallyven (who said that text of the new report looked familiar). I recognized the line and figured that anyone researching the Vattel issue would run across some of the same material. According to Wiki, material may not be credited directly.

  56. avatar
    bob November 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    According to Wiki, material may not be credited directly.

    Uhhh, not really.

    The report properly cites all the works on which is relies (most of which are in the public domain). To imply (as Apuzzo has stated) that the report somehow cut-and-paste’d from various sites is simply wrong.

  57. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Joey: Of course I’m 100% certain that Brian Bilbray ordered the original CRS report. I read it from numerous highly credible sources: the Post & Email, WorldNetDaily, the Birtherreport, freerepublic.com and drkatesview.Worldnetdaily’s article “How Congress Was Prepped to Dismiss Birthers’ states that “The memo was addressed to Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and sent to Jeffrey Post, a staff member in the congressman’s office.”Read more: How Congress was prepped to dismiss birthers’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=226697#ixzz1fDmhTF7CThese are all highly reliable sources of information on all things related to Obama’s eligibility and none of them have EVER published misinformation!

    OK, mystery solved. Following your link to the WND site, I see that the memo sent to Rep Bilbray was a June 5, 2009, transmittal memo, of 2 short paragraphs, by Jerry Mansfield, a CRS librarian located in the Knowledge Systems Group. It was sent out 2 months after the American Law Division memo by Jack Maskell was published. They are 2 entirely different documents, of 2 different orders of magnitude. There is no evidence that Rep Bilbray had anything to do with creating the 2009 Maskell memo; from what WND says, the Maskell memo was not included in the material Jerry sent to Rep Bilbray (which he should have done, it may be that he was covering for someone else that day, it may not have been a topic in his area of expertise, so he just may not have known about the Maskell memo.)
    Just to recap quickly: Jerry Mansfield, reference librarian, tasked with forwarding prepared materials & articles in the public press to congressional offices (such as Rep Bilbray’s) in response to constituent requests, but admittedly not competent to offer legal analysis / Jack Maskell, attorney & member of the bar, tasked with authoring knowledgable studies, drawing on his legal training & experience. There’s no comparison. Bottom line: Rep Bilbray made a request of & received a response from, a librarian, not an attorney. There’s no evidence his request was responsible for creating either the 2009 Maskell memo or the 2011 Maskell report.

  58. avatar
    Thrifty November 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Observer: Prediction: Birthers wiu charge that the CRS Report is a forgery.

    Of course it’s a forgery. It’s a PDF. I can totally see the layers.

  59. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Another concern voiced by CRS itself has been the use of copyrighted information in

    bob: Uhhh, not really.

    The report properly cites all the works on which is relies (most of which are in the public domain).To imply (as Apuzzo has stated) that the report somehow cut-and-paste’d from various sites is simply wrong.

    I don’t know what was or wasn’t copied and pasted. In any case, see below:

    CRS reports. Since the documents were originally only made available “in-house” there has traditionally been little concern over the use of copyrighted material in the reports. However, if the documents are made public as a matter of course then CRS might be opening itself up to claims of copyright infringement.

    http://www.llrx.com/features/crsreports.htm

  60. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    comment above should have the first line placed after “see below”

  61. avatar
    bob November 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    charo: However, if the documents are made public as a matter of course then CRS might be opening itself up to claims of copyright infringement.http://www.llrx.com/features/crsreports.htm

    …and? There’s no indication in this memo that it used copyrighted material in an impermissible fashion.

  62. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    In general, a CRS report, by the agency’s own admission, may not have the proper accreditation. In this case, however, practically every line is credited to some source. Sources themselves can be cited correctly, but the formation of the arguments can be taken from others. That is a different issue. I think that may be what Sallyven is saying.

  63. avatar
    Joey November 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: OK, mystery solved.Following your link to the WND site, I see that the memo sent to Rep Bilbray was a June 5, 2009, transmittal memo, of 2 short paragraphs, by Jerry Mansfield, a CRS librarian located in the Knowledge Systems Group.It was sent out 2 months after the American Law Division memo by Jack Maskell was published.They are 2 entirely different documents, of 2 different orders of magnitude.There is no evidence that Rep Bilbray had anything to do with creating the 2009 Maskell memo; from what WND says, the Maskell memo was not included in the material Jerry sent to Rep Bilbray (which he should have done, it may be that he was covering for someone else that day, it may not have been a topic in his area of expertise, so he just may not have known about the Maskell memo.)
    Just to recap quickly:Jerry Mansfield, reference librarian, tasked with forwarding prepared materials & articles in the public press to congressional offices (such as Rep Bilbray’s)in response to constituent requests, but admittedly not competent to offer legal analysis / Jack Maskell, attorney & member of the bar, tasked with authoring knowledgable studies, drawing on his legal training & experience.There’s no comparison.Bottom line:Rep Bilbray made a request of & received a response from, a librarian, not an attorney.There’s no evidence his request was responsible for creating either the 2009 Maskell memo or the 2011 Maskell report.

    Thanks so much for taking the time to clarify the process.

  64. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: With reports like this, CRS doesn’t need to have any member of Congress making a particular request, only that a (presumably large) number of requests on the topic are expected & that a pre-prepared report suitable for answering many of those requests would be appropriate.

    Is there any kind of analysis as to whether the questions are coming from a small group making so-called “vexatious” requests (the kind which resulted in the Hawaii DOH enacted a law to punish those requesting)?

  65. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    enacting

  66. avatar
    bob November 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    charo: Sources themselves can be cited correctly, but the formation of the arguments can be taken from others. That is a different issue. I think that may be what Sallyven is saying.

    Ahhh, idle speculation that the CRS cut-and-paste’d. Instead of, you know, independently analyzing the law and coming to the same conclusion that everyone but birthers have arrived at.

  67. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    charo: I didn’t ask a question but responded to Sallyven

    Charo, again I’m sorry for my confusion, I guess i didn’t phrase that right. What exactly is your point?

    In your response to Sallyven, you say, “I remember seeing that phrase before because the words “theoriginal” were run together as they are at Fogbow when I read them.”

    Are you saying that you remember this exact phrase from somewhere other than the Maskell report or the Fogbow?

    Or are you saying the ideas that are in that phrase are similar to ideas you have seen here?

    BTW, as a member of the CRS, Mr. Maskell probably has access to original copies of Vattel’s book, both the French and pre-1797 English versions.

  68. avatar
    ballantine November 30, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    The paper stands on its own as it cites authority to support all its arguments. Simply not fair to claim he copied anything from anyone. Any objective researcher would have come to the same conclusion. That being said, it would not surprise me if he did google searches which brought him to sites like Tes’ site or this site which would have pointed him to much authority on the subject. Such is part of basic research as one of the first things one should do is find out what others have discovered. Doesn’t mean your research ends there or you agree with their conclusions.

  69. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    Take a look at this article that seems to have ended up in the library at Carnagie Mellon University, possibly in the papers of the late Senator H. John Heinz (R-PA):

    http://shelf1.library.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/tiff2pdf/heinz/box00020/fld00023/bdl0002/doc0005/heinz.pdf

    Notice the sticker in the upper right-hand corner of the article that says that while the copyright is held by the “Copyright Claimant,” it has been “Reproduced for use of Members of Congress in their legislative duties.” In my day, we stuck these stickers on articles in our files for which we did not have copying permission, but for which we could claim a legislative exemption from the requirements of the copyright law (“use . . . in their legislative duties”) As long as a copied article was sent directly to a congressional office or committee, this legislative exemption applied. What the office or committe chose to do with the article afterwards, well, we had no control over that.
    Regarding Charo’s question about “any kind of analysis as to whether the questions are coming from a small group making so-called ‘vexatious’ requests (the kind which resulted in the Hawaii DOH enacted a law to punish those requesting)?”: such “vexatious” requesters were not contacting CRS directly, because CRS does not take requests from the public. Its specific legislative mandate is to serve the Congress & it answers such requests only if forwarded to it by an office/committee in Congress, & sends its answers back to the requesting office/committee, not to the individual back in the state/district who made the request. What the office/committee then does with that answer is entirely their business. If hundreds of vexatious constituent requests resulted in hundreds of congressional requests to CRS, the only effect on CRS would be reflected in its statistics of how many congressional requests it had answered during the last fiscal year, & please sir/madam, could you please fund our budget request in full so we can keep answering them?

  70. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    bob: Ahhh, idle speculation that the CRS cut-and-paste’d.Instead of, you know, independently analyzing the law and coming to the same conclusion that everyone but birthers have arrived at.

    Courts cut and paste all the time when citing standards of review and precedent. That doesn’t always mean it’s a bad thing. If the two parent argument is well-settled, how could there not be some recycling of ideas?

  71. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    charo: Sources themselves can be cited correctly, but the formation of the arguments can be taken from others. That is a different issue. I think that may be what Sallyven is saying.

    If by “taken from others” you mean a sane interpration of the law at hand, shared by virtually ever member of the bar (and 100% of the sane ones), then I suppose you may have a point.

  72. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    gorefan: Or are you saying the ideas that are in that phrase are similar to ideas you have seen here?

    Yes. As I said above, recycling of ideas is sometimes unavoidable.

  73. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    JoZeppy: If by “taken from others” you mean a sane interpration of the law at hand, shared by virtually ever member of the bar (and 100% of the sane ones), then I suppose you may have a point.

    Anyone who has studied the issue to a reasonable degree will recognize most if not all of the points made.

  74. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: If hundreds of vexatious constituent requests resulted in hundreds of congressional requests to CRS,

    It sounds like you said that is exactly what happened.

  75. avatar
    ASK Esq November 30, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Predictably enough, the birthers are attacking the report. Over at Free Republic, the general consensus seems to be that, since Maskell disagrees with them on Minor and Vattel, he is, ipso facto, wrong. Of course, they can’t show how he’s wrong, they simply assert that he is wrong because he isn’t right.

  76. avatar
    aarrgghh November 30, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    shocking, i know, but the report hasn’t changed a single mind:

    “Can anyone else see why this country is in a perpetual state of GRIDLOCK in Congress? It takes this “Attorney” FIFTY pages of gobledy-gook and baloney to explain, investigate, theorize, extrapolate and pontificate upon what appears to ME to be a pretty well-written, clear-cut statement within our Constitution. 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.”

    by 19kofcagnra70

    only idiots need apply …

  77. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    charo: Anyone who has studied the issue to a reasonable degree will recognize most if not all of the points made.

    That is because there is a broad concensus on what the law is, and every reasonable person with a law degree that is remotely familiar with the issue has made the same point over and over again. There really isn’t any controversy on the issue. The law is very clear, and any lawyer that looks at the questions will come to the same conclusions, citing the same case law.

  78. avatar
    ballantine November 30, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    ASK Esq: Predictably enough, the birthers are attacking the report. Over at Free Republic, the general consensus seems to be that, since Maskell disagrees with them on Minor and Vattel, he is, ipso facto, wrong. Of course, they can’t show how he’s wrong, they simply assert that he is wrong because he isn’t right.

    A 9-0 Supreme Court decision wouldn’t change their minds. Curious that people with no legal training at all, or lawyers with the most pathetic of qualifications, think themseles to be Constitutional experts. No matter what any scholar, Court, Congressman says, it is easy to say everyone is wrong and you are right. Hard to understand what kind of mind thinks like that.

  79. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    charo: It sounds like you said that is exactly what happened.

    Not quite. CRS wouldn’t know or care how small or large the number of vexationators were in the general population, only how large the volume of requests was. Even then, the volume may not have been quantified; deciding to produce a report answering questions of presidential eligibility may have been nothing more than an experienced analyst, using his/her professional judgment, observing that “Gee, we’e getting a lot of requests about presidential eligibility/death panels/enhanced interrogation/whatever, we should do a report to answer them.” In the case of the Hawaii DOH being swamped by repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, that doesn’t follow here. The folks being swamped by repeated requests from vexatious birthers would be the staff in House & Senate offices; if they turned to CRS for answers every time, so much the better, as, come appropriations time, CRS could point to how useful & necessary it is. Unlike the staff at the HI DOH, CRS is geared to answer questions, politely of course, so it would never have to deal directly with the vexationators. The exception to that would be if, in replying to a constituent, the congressional office passed on the name & phone number of the CRS staffer who handled the request (as Rep Bilbray’s office did with poor Jerry Mansfield), who then became a target of the seekers of truth at the likes of WND.

  80. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    charo: Yes.As I said above, recycling of ideas is sometimes unavoidable.

    Charo, Thank you for clearing that up. From your original comment, I got the inference that you had seen that exact text before. And than you cited the wiki passage about the CRS crediting standards, which made it seem that you thought he had “borrowed” the text from somewhere else.

  81. avatar
    charo November 30, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    gorefan: Charo, Thank you for clearing that up.From your original comment, I got the inference that you had seen that exact text before.And than you cited the wiki passage about the CRS crediting standards, which made it seem that you thought he had “borrowed” the text from somewhere else.

    That information was for Sallyven. I was trying to get her to see that it even if there were a lack of crediting in a CRS report, the casualness exists because the reports were to be circulated for a limited purpose for targeted individuals. I further tried to convey that everyone is going to come across the same ideas when researching such a finite issue. I’m glad you were able to see that without the hysterics that some exhibit on occasion.

  82. avatar
    G November 30, 2011 at 11:32 pm #

    Thank you so much for all your insights on this process and taking the time to share it with us! Very informative and greatly appreciated!!!

    1% Silver Nitrate: Based on my experience, I’d say this is an “anticipatory report.” The subject-area analyst or powers-that-be within CRS anticipate that a large number of inquiries will be received by CRS to justify preparing a report that covers all aspects of a topic. With reports like this, CRS doesn’t need to have any member of Congress making a particular request, only that a (presumably large) number of requests on the topic are expected & that a pre-prepared report suitable for answering many of those requests would be appropriate.Incidently, are you sure that Congressman Bilbray was the requester for the orginal? The April 2009 general distribution memo lacks a To line (eg, To: The Honorable Brian P Bilbray), a memo prepared specifically for him would have the To line) If the specific To line is lacking on the copy you’ve seen, & it has that April 3, 2009 date, then the likelihood is that he wasn’t the first to request a response, but was only another recipient of CRS’s boilerplate response.

  83. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    ballantine: Curious that people with no legal training at all, or lawyers with the most pathetic of qualifications, think themseles to be Constitutional experts. No matter what any scholar, Court, Congressman says, it is easy to say everyone is wrong and you are right. Hard to understand what kind of mind thinks like that.

    The so-called Vattel argument is the hardest to fathom (IMHO).

    First, common sense understanding of ordinary group plural (ie: “only children whose parentS are club members can use the pool”) would be enough to stop 99% of normal people.

    Two, talking to an actual French person (not even a lawyer) to ascertain that “parents” encompasses “relatives”(ie: “I have parents who live in Corsica”) and is not strictly \limited to father/mother would also be enough to squash this.

    That birthers could have willfully ignored those two easy-to-grasp points is only one more clue to their blind and unreasoned bigotry.

  84. avatar
    ellen December 1, 2011 at 2:58 am #

    WND has taken up the Congressional Research Service report on this site http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=373085

    It is practically accusing the CRS of treason.

    Anti-birthers could perhaps use helps from the comments of those who are skilled in the subject.

  85. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn December 1, 2011 at 4:50 am #

    WND is no longer a free speech zone. You post something long, and well reasoned, you are likely to have it deleted by their comment police.

  86. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn December 1, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    Lupin: The so-called Vattel argument is the hardest to fathom (IMHO).

    First, common sense understanding of ordinary group plural (ie: “only children whose parentS are club members can use the pool”) would be enough to stop 99% of normal people.

    Two, talking to an actual French person (not even a lawyer) to ascertain that “parents” encompasses “relatives”(ie: “I have parents who live in Corsica”) and is not strictly \limited to father/mother would also be enough to squash this.

    Thatbirthers could have willfully ignored those two easy-to-grasp points is only one more clue to their blind and unreasoned bigotry.

    I have often mentioned birther misunderstanding of English grammar and told them if it said “parent” it would mean everyone has to be from only one and the same parent. They don’t get it.

  87. avatar
    Northland10 December 1, 2011 at 6:44 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: They don’t get it.

    They don’t want to get it.

  88. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn December 1, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    Northland10: They don’t want to get it.

    True, but I also think they are not smart enough to get it, even if they wanted to understand.

  89. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: True, but I also think they are not smart enough to get it, even if they wanted to understand.

    I disagree. It’s easy enough to call them morons as I have many times. They deserve plenty of derision for hypocrisy and disrespect of the laws they claim to cherish.

    But knowing there are intelligent birthers reveals that the root and motivations of their apparent belligerence is hatred, chauvinism and bigotry and in some, mostly racism. The smarter birthers are more devious, deceitful and dangerous.

  90. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    The birthers are like a lagoon of bigoted idiots surrounded by a coral ring of grifters.

  91. avatar
    Observer December 1, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Lupin wrote: “First, common sense understanding of ordinary group plural (ie: “only children whose parentS are club members can use the pool”) would be enough to stop 99% of normal people.”

    Very good point. CRS covered this on page 24 in note109.

    I would hate to have to watch a birther waiting at immigration who is forced to choose between line A, “American citizens with passports,” and line B, “Aliens.”

    Without multiple “passportS,” the poor chap would have to tell himself that he was going to be denied entry, because under his very own reasoning he had only one passport.

    But the correct reasoning is that A citizen with A passport may be admitted, even as A person born with A citizen parent may be one of the “indigines.”

    As Isaac Asimov might have said, quoting Schiller, “Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens.”

  92. avatar
    Sally HIll December 1, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    Because we all know that our government would never lie to us.

    Because we all know that our government would never publish any type of propaganda.

    So, which of his opinions is right, his first, his second, or his third?

    Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.

    And I should probably add….Period. End of story. 🙂

  93. avatar
    JD Reed December 1, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Hey, Sally Hill,

    You got it right on the fourth point — “Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.”
    Birthers over and over spout the same overwhelmingly debunked barnyard waste, such as a 1981 travel ban regarding Pakistan; that anyone could call in a report of a birth in Honolulu in 1961 and get the two papers to print it no questions asked; and that the Minor case ruled that two citizen parents are necessary for natural born citizenship.
    (This is only the start of a nearly inexhaustible list.)
    Yes, government officials sometimes lie, but almost always on matters that they think they can’t be caught on.)
    And even if some officials do sometimes lie, the default is that they’re telling the truth, because the great majority of time, they are. And in most cases, their word is prima facie evidence, which means that those who dispute what they say must carry the burden of proof by at least a preponderance of evidence.

    Birthers don’t.

  94. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Sally HIll: Because we all know that our government would never lie to us.

    Because we all know that our government would never publish any type of propaganda.

    So, which of his opinions is right, his first, his second, or his third?

    Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.

    As I said: a lagoon of bigoted idiots.

  95. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    After reading birther resposnes to this report, I just shake may head and wonder how any class of Americans can really be this stupid. There is just no other word for it. I can understand most Americans don’t know anything about the rules of civil procuder so that when the WND says that Kerchner would somehow be entitled to discovery if he was sanctioned they don’t recognize it as an outright lie (although they should have enough sense to then question why Orly, who was sanctioned, didn’t get discovery).

    Then there is is, from ORYR:

    “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?”

    Is reading comprehension such a lost art? How genuinely stupid do you have to be not to understand the two statements fit together perfectly. Maskell never said there was no controlling law on the subject of who is a natural born citizen. He said there is nothing to support the notion that the status of the parents matters. That’s because all of the case law supports jus soli.

    I appologize for my repeated use of the word “stupid” but I just don’t know how else to explain it anymore. We have before us the most complete and well sourced document covering the definition of Natural Born Citizen. What it says doesn’t come as a surprise to any of us who looked into the subject, and know how to research and read the law, but it brings together in one single document what we’ve been saying all along (if in much smaller and scattered bits).

    And what do the birthers come back with?

    Appeals to rascism (“well that would mean that the child of an illegal alien could be president” yeah…it does…so what?).

    The same Minor quote taken out of context, that was directly addressed.

    And various claims of the importance of de Vattel to the founders, without ever showing that they ever considered his opinions on citizenship (I tend to think that none of these birthers have ever read anything de Vattel wrote besides that couple of sentances on citizenship. Me thinks they would be quite suprised at who very “unAmerican” he actually was).

    My only conclusion is the people who swallow this have to be very deeply stupid. I really don’t know how else to explain it. The folks profiting on this might know they’re peddling lies, and may not be profoundly stupid, and only completely amoral, but those who are buying these lies can only be genuinely stupid.

  96. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    Brilliant analogy! LMAO! You are really on a roll today!

    Lupin: The birthers are like a lagoon of bigoted idiots surrounded by a coral ring of grifters.

  97. avatar
    Sef December 1, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    JoZeppy: My only conclusion is the people who swallow this have to be very deeply stupid. I really don’t know how else to explain it. The folks profiting on this might know they’re peddling lies, and may not be profoundly stupid, and only completely amoral, but those who are buying these lies can only be genuinely stupid.

    Stupidity is one possible explanation. I think another. of possibly more importance, is tunnel vision or selective blindness. They simply ignore that which does not conform to their preconceptions. They have a lot invested in their “being right” and can’t conceive of anything else. Plus, they believe people with questionable credentials, such as El Putzo, over people with real credentials, because they tell them what they want to hear.

  98. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    Yeah, this level of willful denial of reality in anything that doesn’t fit one’s preconceived fantasies can only be described as a full-blown pathological psychosis.

    She is fixated on her imaginary definition of NBC (requiring 2 citizen parents) to such a delusional extent that her reading comprehension capability can no longer grasp any concept that debunks that notion.

    It is like a faulty computer program that breaks down when it doesn’t get its preconceived answer…”error…error…does not compute!”

    I would have to agree that such an abject level of denial and inability to comprehend reality beyond one’s delusions IS most certainly a form of genuine stupidity.

    So yeah, she has demonstrated herself to be Stoopid with a captial S!

    JoZeppy: Is reading comprehension such a lost art? How genuinely stupid do you have to be not to understand the two statements fit together perfectly. Maskell never said there was no controlling law on the subject of who is a natural born citizen. He said there is nothing to support the notion that the status of the parents matters. That’s because all of the case law supports jus soli.

  99. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    A good and correct response, JD Reed. However, it will be completely lost on terminally delusional Sally Hill. JoZeppy is absolutely correct, she is willfully stuck on stupid beyond repair and no longer able to grasp reality.

    JD Reed: Hey, Sally Hill, You got it right on the fourth point — “Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.”Birthers over and over spout the same overwhelmingly debunked barnyard waste, such as a 1981 travel ban regarding Pakistan; that anyone could call in a report of a birth in Honolulu in 1961 and get the two papers to print it no questions asked; and that the Minor case ruled that two citizen parents are necessary for natural born citizenship.(This is only the start of a nearly inexhaustible list.)Yes, government officials sometimes lie, but almost always on matters that they think they can’t be caught on.)And even if some officials do sometimes lie, the default is that they’re telling the truth, because the great majority of time, they are. And in most cases, their word is prima facie evidence, which means that those who dispute what they say must carry the burden of proof by at least a preponderance of evidence.Birthers don’t.

  100. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    JoZeppy: I tend to think that none of these birthers have ever read anything de Vattel wrote besides that couple of sentances on citizenship.

    And not only read, but clearly misinterpreted.

    I do not believe that the author of the learned opinion visited this site and read any of my postings on Vattel, but Note 109 could not be more accurately phrased.

  101. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    *waaaaah* You’re pathetic and predictable little tantrum of instinctively stomping your feet and shouting “lalalalalalala” because you can’t face the truth anymore is just beyond sad.

    Poor SallyVen, you only have yourself to blame for becoming mad to the point that you’ve rendered yourself an inept idiot, utterly untethered and unable to distinguish between reality and the fevered fantasies in your head.

    Sally HIll: Because we all know that our government would never lie to us.Because we all know that our government would never publish any type of propaganda.So, which of his opinions is right, his first, his second, or his third?Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT. And I should probably add….Period. End of story.

  102. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    Sef: Stupidity is one possible explanation. I think another. of possibly more importance, is tunnel vision or selective blindness. They simply ignore that which does not conform to their preconceptions. They have a lot invested in their “being right” and can’t conceive of anything else. Plus, they believe people with questionable credentials, such as El Putzo, over people with real credentials, because they tell them what they want to hear.

    You’re far kinder than I. To have that level of tunnel vision or selective blindness has to include a very healthy portion of stupid. I just don’t see any way around it.

    I’ve been reading some of the “de-bunking” of the report on Freep. There response to a well sourced intelligent document is to make up rules of law, make wholly unsupportable statements of “fact”, and just stomp their feet like little children. Our public school system has truely failed us if this is they citizenry it pruduces. Rational thought and reason are well beyond their grasp.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Sally HIll:
    Because we all know that our government would never lie to us.

    Because we all know that our government would never publish any type of propaganda.

    So, which of his opinions is right, his first, his second, or his third?

    Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.

    And I should probably add….Period.End of story.

    Thanks for proving my point, “Scott Brown”.

    Be careful. Irony meters are exploding all around you.

    Leave it to a clueless, serial birther troll to brilliantly demonstrate the obvious, sling the same ridiculous fallacies and maintain a perfect record for coming across as an irrational dolt.

    Bravo.

  104. avatar
    gorefan December 1, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Sally HIll: Saying something over and over – especially to the masses who WANT to believe what is being said – does not make it FACT.

    Do you mean like travel bans to Pakistan, false SSNs, fake BCs, Indonesian adoption and all the other birther stuff?

  105. avatar
    Observer December 1, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    Ok, Leo is in full cry over the CRS Report. Reading the text at note 231 on page 48, he finds this sentence: “In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that ‘[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son’ of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
    But, Leo says: “But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what he says they actually said:
    ‘It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.’ Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
    “This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

    The problem here is that Leo himself has done some creative cropping of his own. The quoted sentence is in fact a part of a full paragraph, but Leo drops the second sentence completely:

    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, Cal.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=253&page=454

    Leo is taking his quibble to an extreme. In summarizing one point in a 50 page report with 233 footnotes, CRS carefully writes that the Court “explained” its view. It does not claim that this was a holding. The Court itself set forth a general statement that (1) if Kwok was the son of his parents, and (2) if they were permanently domiciled [that is, in their permanent physical home] in the U.S at the time of his birth, then (3) he is a citizen and (4) concededly was found by the Immigration Commissioner “to be a natural born citizen.” Leo says that the phrase “a natural born citizen” is “an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion,” but that conceals the fact that the quote was from THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, and that it is integral to the Court’s introduction to the issues in the case.

    Basically, Kwok was born in the U.S., but wanted to visit China, and asked for and received a prior determination of his citizenship. When he returned to the U.S., a bureaucrat charged that the returnee was not Kwok, but an imposter named Lew Suey Chong. The issue before the Court was not Kwok’s citizenship, but whether the courts below had erred by excluding eyewitness testimony confirming Kwok’s identity. They brought in three witnesses who had known Kwok. They recognized him and confirmed his identity, and Kwok recognized them, but the bureaucrats suppressed this information. The Court held that the suppression of this evidence meant that Kwok had not been accorded a fair hearing, in violation of due process, and remanded for a trial on the merits.

    So?

    The sentence in the CRS Report summarizes what the Court stated on the page of the opinion that it cited, and provides a full citation. It does not rely on the statement as a holding of the Court, but simply as an example of the Court’s view on natural born citizenship by birth. Kwok’s parents were citizens, but instead of noting this in the sentence, the Court says he was born to them while they were permanently domiciled in the U.S., implying that physical presence more than citizenship was the operative fact.

    But Leo calls it a “monstrosity, a “deceitful exercise [that] alone strips the entire memo of all credibility,” “Frankensteining (sic) crap,” and part of the “depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat.” Really? The words in quotation marks are in the decision. The words that are not quoted are a paraphrase. I think the CRS summary is fair by the standards of legal briefs and law review articles.

    Leo can argue about the Kwok case, but it does not help the two-parent cause, because its holding related to the denial of procedural due process in the hearing procedures, and did not entail a determination of his citizenship of natural born status, since his citizenship was “not disputed.” Not disputed. As in, not an issue before the Court for decision. The decision was that he was unfairly treated because crucial evidence was suppressed.

    (Although I am a lawyer with three bar memberships, I have never, and never will, post at Leo’s site, since he can censor comments over there; and even more since he now discriminates against non-lawyers, many of whom know far more and better that him. Leo can read it here and comment here.)

  106. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    I suspect that he’s too much of an egotistical coward to do that. That is why he’s fortified his little internet site as his private safe zone, so he doesn’t have to face the world. He can’t handle criticism.

    Heck, Squeeky Fromm, a non-laywer was able to easily debunk his talking points so easily that he had to create his new rules of censorship because he’s incapable and afraid of debating her.

    Observer: (Although I am a lawyer with three bar memberships, I have never, and never will, post at Leo’s site, since he can censor comments over there; and even more since he now discriminates against non-lawyers, many of whom know far more and better that him. Leo can read it here and comment here.)

  107. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    Observer: Leo is taking his quibble to an extreme.

    No, not Leo! Not the person who tries to raise the fact that some private internet site that makes some Supreme Court opinions available to the public, but is not relied on by anyone who does even semi-serious legal research, had some issues with linking cases to an opinion that does not actually say what he claims it to say, into proof of some wide conspiracy to hide the truth about the definion of natural born citizenship. Not that Leo!

  108. avatar
    Observer December 1, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    At 12:57 above, the party’s name should be spelled “Kwock” throughout. Apologies.

  109. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    Observer:
    Ok, Leo is in full cry over the CRS Report.Reading the text at note 231 on page 48, he finds this sentence: “In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that ‘[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son’ of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
    But, Leo says: “But the Supreme Court never said that.Here’s what he says they actually said:
    It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.’Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
    “This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

    The problem here is that Leo himself has done some creative cropping of his own.The quoted sentence is in fact a part of a full paragraph, but Leo drops the second sentence completely:

    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, Cal.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=253&page=454

    Leo is taking his quibble to an extreme.In summarizing one point in a 50 page report with 233 footnotes, CRS carefully writes that the Court “explained” its view.It does not claim that this was a holding.The Court itself set forth a general statement that (1) if Kwok was the son of his parents, and (2) if they were permanently domiciled [that is, in their permanent physical home] in the U.S at the time of his birth, then (3) he is a citizen and (4) concededly was found by the Immigration Commissioner “to be a natural born citizen.”Leo says that the phrase “a natural born citizen” is “an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion,” but that conceals the fact that the quote was from THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, and that it is integral to the Court’s introduction to the issues in the case.

    Basically, Kwok was born in the U.S., but wanted to visit China, and asked for and receiveda prior determination of his citizenship.When he returned to the U.S., a bureaucrat charged that the returnee was not Kwok, but an imposter named Lew Suey Chong.The issue before the Court was not Kwok’s citizenship, but whether the courts below had erred by excluding eyewitness testimony confirming Kwok’s identity.They brought in three witnesses who had known Kwok. They recognized him and confirmed his identity, and Kwok recognized them, but the bureaucrats suppressed this information.The Court held that the suppression of this evidence meant that Kwok had not been accorded a fair hearing, in violation of due process, and remanded for a trial on the merits.

    So?

    The sentence in the CRS Report summarizes what the Court stated on the page of the opinion that it cited, and provides a full citation.It does not rely on the statement as a holding of the Court, but simply as an example of the Court’s view on natural born citizenship by birth.Kwok’s parents were citizens, but instead of noting this in the sentence, the Court says he was born to them while they were permanently domiciled in the U.S., implying that physical presence more than citizenship was the operative fact.

    But Leo calls it a “monstrosity, a “deceitful exercise [that] alone strips the entire memo of all credibility,” “Frankensteining (sic) crap,” and part of the “depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat.”Really?The words in quotation marks are in the decision.The words that are not quoted are a paraphrase. I think the CRS summary is fair by the standards of legal briefs and law review articles.

    Leo can argue about the Kwok case, but it does not help the two-parent cause, because its holding related to the denial of procedural due process in the hearing procedures, and did not entail a determination of his citizenship of natural born status, since his citizenship was “not disputed.”Not disputed.As in, not an issue before the Court for decision.The decision was that he was unfairly treated because crucial evidence was suppressed.

    (Although I am a lawyer with three bar memberships, I have never, and never will, post at Leo’s site, since he can censor comments over there; and even more since he now discriminates against non-lawyers, many of whom know far more and better that him.Leo can read it here and comment here.)

    One of his sycophants is parroting Leo the Parakeet here:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23/holdings-dicta-and-stare-decisis/

  110. avatar
    bob December 1, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Observer: The sentence in the CRS Report summarizes what the Court stated on the page of the opinion that it cited, and provides a full citation. It does not rely on the statement as a holding of the Court, but simply as an example of the Court’s view on natural born citizenship by birth. Kwok’s parents were citizens, but instead of noting this in the sentence, the Court says he was born to them while they were permanently domiciled in the U.S., implying that physical presence more than citizenship was the operative fact.
    Maskell is citing this case for the proposition that SCOTUS understood birth in the United States was sufficient for natural-born citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

    Neither SCOTUS nor Maskell describe Kwock Jan Fat’s parents as citizens — Maskell in fact posits Kwock Jan Fat’s parents could never be citizens (under the law in effect at the time). It is arguable that Maskell wrongly reads SCOTUS’s descriptions of Kwock Jan Fat’s parents as being non-citizens, but I think Maskell got it right.

    Where it gets slightly more interesting is that Kwock Jan Fat claimed his father (Kwock Tuck Lee) was born in the United States to Chinese parents. But, again, under the laws in effect at the time, there is was no way for Kwock Tuck Lee to claim U.S. citizenship despite being born in the United States, and therefore no way for Kwock Jan Fat to also claim U.S. citizenship.

  111. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    bob: Where it gets slightly more interesting is that Kwock Jan Fat claimed his father (Kwock Tuck Lee) was born in the United States to Chinese parents. But, again, under the laws in effect at the time, there is was no way for Kwock Tuck Lee to claim U.S. citizenship despite being born in the United States, and therefore no way for Kwock Jan Fat to also claim U.S. citizenship.

    Except for the small detail that if you’re born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen. The laws prohibited naturalization of Chinese immigrants. They had no effect on natural born citizens.

  112. avatar
    bob December 1, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    JoZeppy: Except for the small detail that if you’re born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen. The laws prohibited naturalization of Chinese immigrants. They had no effect on natural born citizens.

    Tell that to Wong Kim Ark, who was born on U.S. soil.

  113. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    bob: Tell that to Wong Kim Ark, who was born on U.S. soil.

    And the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen….have you read WKA?

  114. avatar
    bob December 1, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    JoZeppy: And the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen….have you read WKA?

    Many times. But before Wong Kim Ark was decided, people born in the United States to Chinese parents (like Kwock Jan Fat and his father) were not considered U.S. citizens (despite the 14th Amendment).

  115. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    bob: Many times. But before Wong Kim Ark was decided, people born in the United States to Chinese parents (like Kwock Jan Fat and his father) were not considered U.S. citizens (despite the 14th Amendment).

    That is what the government argued, and the government got smacked down by the the 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court. And WKA was decided 20 years before Supreme Court ruled on Kwok Jan Fat (15 years after he sought to have is citizenship confirmed).

    Again, so how could he not claim citizenship.

  116. avatar
    bob December 1, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: That is what the government argued, and the government got smacked down by the the 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court. And WKA was decided 20 years before Supreme Court ruled on Kwok Jan Fat (15 years after he sought to have is citizenship confirmed).

    Do you think before Wong Kim Ark was decided the government (and the citizenry generally) considered those born in the United States to Chinese parents to be U.S. citizens? If that was the presumption, then why did Wong Kim Ark have to sue to establish his citizenship?

  117. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    bob: Do you think before Wong Kim Ark was decided the government (and the citizenry generally) considered those born in the United States to Chinese parents to be U.S. citizens? If that was the presumption, then why did Wong Kim Ark have to sue to establish his citizenship?

    First off, what the citizenry thinks is pretty irrelevant. The law isn’t determined by what people think the law is. As it was before the advent of polling, I don’t think we can really be sure what the majority of people thought. However, the language of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear. There is no mention of parentage. Also, the public reaction to Scott v. Sanford, and Justice Curtis’ decent to it, does provide support to the argument that folks were pretty aware that citizenship is awarded on the basis of jus soli. The fact that then, as now, there are those who attempt to use racism and fear mongering (then Chinese, now Latino), to try to convince people that what they thought was the case isn’t so, and there were those willing to swallow those arguments doesn’t turn the law on it’s head. WKA had to sue to establish his citizenship, because some low level bureaucrat, caught up in the bigotry of the day, with a racist law in hand, over-reached the scope of the law. He tried to exclude a citizen. As bureacracies aren’t very good at correcting themselves, it took going to court to shut them down. Obviously, if WKA won on both the Circuit Court level, as well as the Supreme Court, there were people out there who recognized that parentage didn’t matter for citizenship (and I’m sure if you ask even those who tried to claim WKA wasn’t a citizen, they would have no problem with accepting the child of protestant Western European immigrants as a citizen).

  118. avatar
    JoZeppy December 1, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    And more to the point. All this is irrelevant. WKA was only the final nail in the coffin for those who argued that a person born on US soil (not to diplomat or invading army parents) was anything but a natural born citizen. There was only one case that held that a person could be born on US soil and not a citizen. That was Scott v. Sanford, and even at the time it first came out, it was considered the worst of judicial activism and a self inflicted black eye to the Court. It was the only decision of the court that led a justice to resign in protest, and has been completely repudiated since. Attempts to limit citizenship by claiming we were anything but jus soli were always in reaction to some racist trend in the country, and they all ultimately failed.

  119. avatar
    bob December 1, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    Donofrio’s point is that Maskell got it wrong when he described Kwock Jan Fat’s parents as “two Chinese nationals” who “were not, and could never be, U.S. citizens.” Kwock Jan Fat’s father was born in the United States.

    Do you agree with Donofrio that Maskell got it wrong when he concluded that Kwock Jan Fat’s father was not a U.S. citizen?

  120. avatar
    G December 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    Simple answer: NO.

    Donofrio is merely picking at inconsequential nits and trying to twist words, merely as a weak-argument tantrum to try to somehow discredit the broader bulk of the report.

    His analysis fails to do so. When your only argument is to nit-pick and twist one minor citation of support in a vastly larger document, chock full of many further citations of support…then you really don’t have much of an argument at all.

    bob: Donofrio’s point is that Maskell got it wrong when he described Kwock Jan Fat’s parents as “two Chinese nationals” who “were not, and could never be, U.S. citizens.” Kwock Jan Fat’s father was born in the United States.Do you agree with Donofrio that Maskell got it wrong when he concluded that Kwock Jan Fat’s father was not a U.S. citizen?

  121. avatar
    The Head Researcher December 1, 2011 at 11:08 pm #

    I updated my CRS memo Leo Donofrio Internet Article to address the Chinese Exclusion Acts, and other things.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/the-paraclete-jumps-to-another-wrong-conclusion/

    Well first, from above, the Kwock Jan Fat Court characterized the parents simply as permanently domiciled in the United States. The Court does not go into any kind of analysis of their citizenship status. Several statements were made by white citizens prior to Kwock’s year long trip to China. None expressly called Kwock’s father a citizen, although they did note he was born in America and registered to vote. No documents were presented, and this would have simply been hearsay evidence. But this was offered simply to prove that Kwock had been born in America, not to prove the citizenship of his father. As a legal matter, no one on the Court knew or cared what citizenship the father adhered to. No evidence was submitted that the Father was either a diplomat or invading soldier. And that is additional evidence that the two citizen-parent stuff is nonsense.

    Further, at the time of Kwock Jan Fat case, the Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect. Wiki says:

    The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by Chester A. Arthur on May 8, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years. This law was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

    [skip some stuff]

    The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. It also allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California that Chinese people were not allowed to marry whites was not repealed until 1948.

    The is no evidence that Kwock’s father ever applied for certification for re-entry, something required for Chinese born here even 22 years after Wong Kim Ark. And after reference to the Chinese Exclusion Act above, it was far from certain that Kwock’s father would have automatically been presumed to be a citizen without proof of his birth place, which would default him being deemed a Chinese national a reasonable characterization.

    And, another thing that Donofrio misses, is that the dog didn’t bark. Similarly, the Kwock Jan Fat Court didn’t engage in an analysis of the parent’s citizenship. The Court’s characterization is simply that they were permanently domiciled in the United States. And it stopped there. Because the two citizen-parent stuff is just imaginary Birther law. Looking back at the facts, we can engage in that analysis, but that court didn’t. Real courts don’t do imaginary law very well. There was no reason to inquire into their citizenship status anymore than there was to in Wong Kim Ark.

    It is important to keep in mind where we are in this discussion. A 53 page memo was written which devastates the two citizen-parent theory. In response, Leo Donofrio picks out one sentence of that memo to try to destroy its credibility. That in itself is a silly enterprise, but entirely predictable. The Birthers have a history of ignoring Reality to maintain their theory. It is not surprising that they would attempt to ignore 52+ pages of well documented legal memo to keep up their delusions.

    I hope this helps.

    The Head Researcher

  122. avatar
    G December 2, 2011 at 12:00 am #

    Well said! Those were exactly the same points I too was trying to make. I think you said it better, thanks.

    The Head Researcher: And, another thing that Donofrio misses, is that the dog didn’t bark. Similarly, the Kwock Jan Fat Court didn’t engage in an analysis of the parent’s citizenship. The Court’s characterization is simply that they were permanently domiciled in the United States. And it stopped there. Because the two citizen-parent stuff is just imaginary Birther law. Looking back at the facts, we can engage in that analysis, but that court didn’t. Real courts don’t do imaginary law very well. There was no reason to inquire into their citizenship status anymore than there was to in Wong Kim Ark.
    It is important to keep in mind where we are in this discussion. A 53 page memo was written which devastates the two citizen-parent theory. In response, Leo Donofrio picks out one sentence of that memo to try to destroy its credibility. That in itself is a silly enterprise, but entirely predictable. The Birthers have a history of ignoring Reality to maintain their theory. It is not surprising that they would attempt to ignore 52+ pages of well documented legal memo to keep up their delusions.

  123. avatar
    bob December 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    I wrote to Maskell about Kwock; his response:

    “I agree that case cite needs clarification to emphasize that Kwock and one witness did aver that his father was born in the United States. It is important, I think, that the Court only mentioned that the parents were permanently “domiciled” in the United States, and thus did not appear to rely on citizenship status, when they accepted the characterization of the Commissioner of Immigration that he was a natural born citizen.”

  124. avatar
    Observer December 2, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    I think Leo is making a flamboyant diversionary attack on the one sentence in the CRS Report on the Kwock case to deflect attention from the devastating effect of that case on his entire thesis. As I wrote above, December 1, 2011 at 12:57: “Kwock’s parents were citizens, but instead of noting this in the sentence, the Court says he was born to them while they were permanently domiciled in the U.S., implying that physical presence more than citizenship was the operative fact.”

    Even granting Leo’s assumption that Kwock’s parents were citizens, the court nevertheless ignored that status and relied on their domicile. (Kwock and one witness said the father was native born, but it seems that the Court never made a determination of his citizenship). The citizenship issue is a red herring dragged out to deflect attention from the full implications of Court’s statement in Kwock. Here it is in full:

    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, Cal.”

    In short, the Court stated that a person born to parents with domicile within the United States, without mentioning their citizenship, is not only a citizen, but is concededly a natural born citizen. The Court’s explanation is qualified only by the “permanently domiciled” status of the parents, not by the status or source of their citizenship. The Court simply did not state that the citizenship of the parents was relevant to the determination of natural born citizenship. The Court relied instead only on their domicile, and did not even make domicile an exclusive element in its reasoning.

    The reasoning of the statement necessarily applies to all persons physically born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. The necessary implication is that the citizenship of the parents is not an element of natural born citizenship.

    Of course, the statement is not a part of the holding of the case, nor is it part of the reasoning that led to its decision (ratio decidendi). But, then, neither were the statements by the Court in Minor and Lockwood that have loomed so large in Leo’s reasoning. This statement not only has as much authority as the Court’s statement in Minor, but also answers the question left open in Minor:

    “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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” 88 U.S. at 168.

    Well, the Court’s statement in Kwock unequivocally “include[s] as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and goes on to state explicitly that it was “conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen,…”

    So the Kwock Court is saying that this person, who it found to be a citizen under the standards of Wong Kim Ark by virtue of his birth in the United States, without making any reference to the citizenship of his parents, was concededly a natural born citizen. The statement, coming after the Minor or Lockwood statements, effectively puts the two-citizen parent theory out of business, since it clearly states that a person whose parents are merely domiciled may be a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

    Given this devastating impact, the birthers are now understandably desperate to distinguish the case on its facts by arguing that Kwock’s father was American born. But the facts in Minor can also be distinguished. Minor only held that the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution did not give a woman the right to vote, but its holding applied to both naturalized and natural born citizens. The holding in no way relied on its view of natural born citizens.

    So also in Ex parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), where the Court stated: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;…”

    But, once again, Lockwood only held that a state could bar a woman from the practice of law, without violating the privileges and immunities clause. The decision applied to all women, both naturalized and natural born. The Court’s statement that women, if born of citizen parents, were considered citizens had no bearing on its holding, since the holding barred all women citizens.

    So Leo and the birthers are trying to have it both ways, elevating the dicta of Minor and Lockwood to controlling stature, while ignoring the unequivocal contrary statement in the later Kwock case. But if Leo continues to credit Minor and Lockwood, he will have to come to grips with Kwock. As Leo asked himself, “Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?”

    Read it again.

    The Court really said that the son of two parents with mere permanent domicile was a natural born citizen.

    Sorry.

    The Court said it.

  125. avatar
    Observer December 2, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Thanks, Bob, for the information.

    “…the Court only mentioned that the parents were permanently ‘domiciled’ in the United States, and thus did not appear to rely on citizenship status, when they accepted the characterization of the Commissioner of Immigration that he was a natural born citizen.”

    Agreed. As I wrote, I think that parental physical presence, more than their citizenship, was “the operative fact.”

  126. avatar
    bob December 2, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Observer:
    Thanks, Bob, for the information.

    “…the Court only mentioned that the parents were permanently domiciled’ in the United States, and thus did not appear to rely on citizenship status, when they accepted the characterization of the Commissioner of Immigration that he was a natural born citizen.”

    Agreed.As I wrote, I think that parental physical presence, more than their citizenship, was “the operative fact.”

    Maskell obviously agrees with you as well. Note how he said it was “averred” that Kwock Jan Fat’s father was born in the United States. As in, it was alleged, but there’s nothing to indicate that that fact was determinative to any of the decision makers.

  127. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    bob: Maskell obviously agrees with you as well.Note how he said it was “averred” that Kwock Jan Fat’s father was born in the United States.As in, it was alleged, but there’s nothing to indicate that that fact was determinative to any of the decision makers.

    Yes. The Court clearly decided that it did not need to resolve the issue of the father’s citizenship, and the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the citizenship of the parents was – and is – irrelevant.

  128. avatar
    G December 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Excellent way to summarize what it boils down to in concise terms. Kudos.

    Observer: Read it again.
    The Court really said that the son of two parents with mere permanent domicile was a natural born citizen.
    Sorry.
    The Court said it.

  129. avatar
    bob December 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Well, even permanent domicile isn’t necessary. (Was Obama, Sr. permanently domiciled when he was in the United States on a student visa?)

  130. avatar
    The Head Researcher December 2, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    I also added this part above:

    “The Court does not go into any kind of analysis of their citizenship status. Several statements were made by white citizens prior to Kwock’s year long trip to China. None expressly called Kwock’s father a citizen, although they did note he was born in America and registered to vote. No documents were presented, and this would have simply been hearsay evidence. But this was offered simply to prove that Kwock had been born in America, not to prove the citizenship of his father. As a legal matter, no one on the Court knew or cared what citizenship the father adhered to. No evidence was submitted that the Father was either a diplomat or invading soldier. And that is additional evidence that the two citizen-parent stuff is nonsense.”

    If I may add to that, I think the HEARSAY aspect of this is important in Maskell’s characterization. There was none of the evidence that you would expect if Kwock’s parents’ citizenship status was at issue, like the date of birth of Papa Kwock, actual city of birth of Papa Kwock, and some brief limited history of Papa Kwock’s parentage.

    Another thingie that is missing is any kind documentation of Papa Kwock’s citizenship. This case was heard in 1920, sooo this wasn’t the Dark Ages or anything. People had cars, electricity, telephones, and even airplanes. A paper trail would not have been a mystery to them.

    These are the missing things which shows that the Court was not interested in Papa Kwock’s citizenship.

    The Head Researcher

  131. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    bob: Well, even permanent domicile isn’t necessary. (Was Obama, Sr. permanently domiciled when he was in the United States on a student visa?)

    My understanding is that one is domiciled where one lives, regardless of visa status. Students, illegal overstayers, etc. are domiciled in the US as long as they reside here. Tourists would not be domiciled here. However, even in the case of a foreign tourist, if they give birth in the US, the child is a natural born US citizen. Only children born to diplomats and invading armies are not, because they are not subject to US laws. Tourists of course are, as US tourists are subject to the laws of countries they visit. Many have found that out in very unpleasant ways.

  132. avatar
    bob December 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    “Domicile” requires the intent to permanently reside. Of course, one could make the argument Obama, Sr. manifested an intent to permanently reside in the United States by marrying a U.S. citizen.

  133. avatar
    ballantine December 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    Scientist: My understanding is that one is domiciled where one lives, regardless of visa status. Students, illegal overstayers, etc. are domiciled in the US as long as they reside here. Tourists would not be domiciled here. However, even in the case of a foreign tourist, if they give birth in the US, the child is a natural born US citizen. Only children born to diplomats and invading armies are not, because they are not subject to US laws. Tourists of course are, as US tourists are subject to the laws of countries they visit. Many have found that out in very unpleasant ways.

    A complicated subject. “Domicile” meant residence with an intention of such residence to be permenant. “Domicle” was seen by some as the rule of public law for many matters. Others, pointed out it was an unworkable rule as determining intent is very difficult or impossible. A “resident” could be a temporary, indefinate or permenant resident. Another class seemed to be persons abiding for temporary purposes, who were not even residents but just visiting.

    The common law had no residency or domicile requirement with respect to citizenship and there is pretty much no English or early American authority suggesting residency or domicile was every required. Some did argue residency or domicile was relevant for public law purposes, i.e., to determine disputes with the citizenship laws of nations conflicted. Story thought it made sense to exclude children of temporary visitors for purposes of public law, but admitted such was not universally accepted. I am not aware of the US taking such position for purposes of public law in the early republic.

    In 1866, the author of the Civil Rights Act, Lymon Trumbull, thought children of termporary residents should be excluded from such Act. The House judiicary chair disagreed saying such were native born citizens. When the subject was raised in the 14th Amendment debates, the notion that children of temporary residends should be excluded was rejected without objection. Trumbull would later say only the children of ambassadors should be excluded.

    Justice Gray’s holding was limited to the facts before the court, a child of domiciled aliens. However his definition of the 14th Amendment was broader:

    “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    Hence, Gray says the common law rule includes “all children here born of resident aliens,” he doesn’t say it is limited in such way. No later court has said that residency or domicile is required. However, since there was never a holding with respect to temporary residents, some people argue the issue has not been conclusively resolved. I argue that such are clearly covered under the rationale of the decision as either we adopted the common law like Gray said, or we did not.

  134. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    bob:
    “Domicile” requires the intent to permanently reside.Of course, one could make the argument Obama, Sr. manifested an intent to permanently reside in the United States by marrying a U.S. citizen.

    The Department of State begs to differ. According to DOS, “domicile” means “residence, as defined in section 101(a)(33) of the Act, in the United States, with the intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future…”

    http://www.americanlaw.com/affidavitrule4.html

    “The Act” is the Immigration & Naturalization Act. Section 101(a)(33) reads:

    The term “residence” means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-101/0-0-0-195.html

    In fact, the phrase “permanent domicile” is a redundancy, because the word “domicile” has traditionally meant permanent. Black’s. Fifth Edition:

    Domicile: That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment…

    However, in modern times the very concept of a permanent residence is pretty much passe. How many people remain in the same residence for their entire lives?

  135. avatar
    ballantine December 2, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    I think for Constitution purposes we need to look to what the term was understood to mean in the 18th and 19th Century which I don’t think is too much different. Here is Story:

    “It would be more correct to say, that that place is properly the domicil of a person, in which his habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom. Two things, then, must concur to constitute domicil; first, residence; and secondly, intention of making it the home of the party. There must be the fact, and the intent; for, as Pothier has truly observed, a person cannot establish a domicil in a place, except it be animo et facto.* And in many cases actual residence is not indispensable to retain a domicil, after it is once acquired; but it is retained, animo solo, by the mere intention not to change it, or adopt another. If, therefore, a person leave his home for temporary purposes, but with an intention to return to it, this change of place is not in law a change of domicil. Thus, if a person go on a voyage to sea, or to a foreign country, for health, or pleasure, or business of a temporary nature, with an intention to return, such transitory residence does not constitute a new domicil, or amount to an abandonment of the old one; for it is not the mere act of inhabitancy in a place, which makes it the domicil, but the fact coupled with the intention of remaining there, animo manendi.”

    One can see why many thought it an unworkable rule.

  136. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

    ballantine: Hence, Gray says the common law rule includes “all children here born of resident aliens,” he doesn’t say it is limited in such way. No later court has said that residency or domicile is required. However, since there was never a holding with respect to temporary residents, some people argue the issue has not been conclusively resolved. I argue that such are clearly covered under the rationale of the decision as either we adopted the common law like Gray said, or we did not.

    The US has long taken the position that born here = US citizen regardless of the circumstances. For example, for some border communities in Canada the closest hospital for high risk deliveries is in the US, so patients are routinely transferred and the child is a US citizen (though eligible for Canadian citizenship through the parents). Obviously the parents in those cases weren’t domiciled in the US. Canada has the same birthright citizenship policy, so when Americans in border communities give birth in Canada the children will be Canadian citizens. In many cases, such a child may grow up completely unaware of the citizenship they hold.

    This is now becoming a huge issue with the new law designed to stop international tax evasion. The US is demanding that foreign banks report to the US on all accounts held by US citizens. Futhermore, unlike almost every other country, the US requires citizens
    to file US taxes even if they never set foot in or earn income in the US. They also must report foreign bank accounts over $10,000 and face huge penalties for doing so. This has received a lot of attention lately in Canada and even resulted in protests by the Canadian government. There are estimated to be 1,000,000 US citizens in Canada, many of whom may not even realize they are US citizens. Imagine someone who was born in a US hospital, but grew up in Canada and has lived there all their lives. They have a retirement account and all of a sudden find out that they should have been reporting it to the IRS for the last 20 years and face enormous penalties, even though they have paid all their taxes in Canada. Also, financial institutions all over the world are very concerned, because now they have to identify which customers might be US citizens, which is hard to do in the case of people who live outside the US and register the accounts as citiizens of other countries.

    All this is by way of saying that if you are born in the US, the US considers you a citizen and expects you to pay Uncle Sam whether or not you live in the US.

  137. avatar
    Observer December 3, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

    Over at WND, Corsi writes: “Even when it comes to the case of Sen. John McCain’s eligibility to be president, Maskell glosses over the excoriating attack launched on McCain by the Democrats and the mainstream media because McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, ignoring the arguments made by constitutional lawyers Larry Tribe and Ted Olsen to the U.S. Senate concluding McCain was eligible to be president in part because McCain had two U.S. citizen parents at birth.

    This is false. There was never any attack by the media or by the Democrats on McCain’s citizenship. In fact, the Democrats sponsored a Senate Resolution supporting his citizenship, reported it favorably from committee without hearings, and it passed unanimously.

    Unanimously, as in, all Democrats joined Republicans in approving the resolution.

    Tribe, a Democrat, joined Olson, a Republican in providing legal support.

    Tribe and Olson discussed McCain’s two citizen parents ONLY because he had NOT been born in the United States itself, but in the Canal Zone. They never said there was any parental citizenship requirement for a person born in the United States.

    Take a look at their report: “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase `natural born Citizen’ includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

    They expressly said that birth on U.S. soil met the natural born requirement without regard to the citizenship of parents, and used Obama as an express example of a natural born citizen.

    They found it inconceivable that Obama would have been ineligible if born on American soil.

  138. avatar
    Observer December 3, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Corsi, at WND, writes that Obama used the names “Barry Soetoro,” and “Soebarkah” in Indonesia. He says “Questions remain” whether the long-form is a forgery, and that Hawaii still refuses to show the originals. He says Kapiolani has failed to provide “corroborating evidence” that his mother was ever a patient or that Obama was born there. “So, the case of Barack Obama’s presidency raises several yet unresolved questions.”

    The allegations of different names have no relevance to natural born citizenship. Gerald Ford was born as Leslie King. The possible attributions of different names can have no legal effect on his or anyone else’s United States citizenship. No American-born child can ever lose citizenship merely by living abroad, and only adults can relinquish citizenship.

    There is no credible evidence that the long form, which was provided by the State of Hawaii rather than any private party, is a forgery. A conservative expert John Woodman has published an entire book debunking the allegations of fraud. Paul Irey, one of those who charged fraud, now concedes that Woodman is correct in part, and has notified birthers of the problems with the analysis and asked them not to use it.

    In fact, it was very predicable those demanding to see the long form would claim that it was a forgery after it was released. It is just as predictable that will claim that the original records are forgeries, if they ever see them. The hospital is bound by privacy laws from releasing much information, but the state records provide full corroboration that Obama was born at the Hospital.

    The long form proves that Obama was born at the Kapiolani Hospital at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961, and includes the names of the parents and the signature of the attendant physician. His mother’s signature is on the document, proving that she was present in the hospital as a patient and gave birth there.

    The certificate was accepted and registered by Hawaiian officials. Present day state officials issued the certificate and both Democratic and Republican officials vouch for its authenticity.

    Just like the earlier Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), the long form is prima facie evidence of birth in the United States. It is a public record of the State of Hawaii and is binding on all other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  139. avatar
    G December 3, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    As always Corsi & WND merely lie and intentionally mislead to try to dupe their gullible followers into ignoring the truth and falling for their pathetic smears. Nothing new under the sun here.

  140. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 3, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    Scientist: the US requires citizens
    to file US taxes even if they never set foot in or earn income in the US. They also must report foreign bank accounts over $10,000 and face huge penalties for doing so. This has received a lot of attention lately in Canada and even resulted in protests by the Canadian government. There are estimated to be 1,000,000 US citizens in Canada, many of whom may not even realize they are US citizens. Imagine someone who was born in a US hospital, but grew up in Canada and has lived there all their lives. They have a retirement account and all of a sudden find out that they should have been reporting it to the IRS for the last 20 years and face enormous penalties, even though they have paid all their taxes in Canada.

    Way off topic here, but you’ve piqued my curiosity. How would the US government even know such a person (the unknowing US citizen in Canada) even exists? That person would not have applied for or ever used a US social security number, wouldn’t have a US passport. As far as I know there is no mechanism by which the federal government tracks state-issued birth certificates, or even has access to them — and certainly the IRS isn’t digging into decades-old records to try to chase down tax evaders.

    I can see why the banks are frustrated with tracking/enforcement issues — which by definition would have to be imposed by the governments of their own countries, pursuant to treaty . But it seems to me that they simply would take the word of their own customers, and any US-born individual who did not have either a US passport or social security card would not be considered a citizen.

    I mean, is there a different rule that applies to Canadians than Mexicans? Because in Texas & Arizona there are a lot of American-born individuals who have had a very tough time fighting deportation. See, for example,
    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/report_hundreds_of_us_citizens.html

  141. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Way off topic here, but you’ve piqued my curiosity. How would the US government even know such a person (the unknowing US citizen in Canada) even exists? That person would not have applied for or ever used a US social security number, wouldn’t have a US passport. As far as I know there is no mechanism by which the federal government tracks state-issued birth certificates, or even has access to them — and certainly the IRS isn’t digging into decades-old records to try to chase down tax evaders.

    That is why this new law is causing such a ruckus. Any bank that does any business in the US (which is every decent sized bank in the world) will have to ask all of their customers whether they were born in the US or have US citizenship through birth abroad to US parents. Right now, you are correct that they don’t have this information, since a dual US-Canadian citizen living in Canada would use their Canadian identity documents and Canadian SIN (the equivalent of the SSN) to open the account. Essentially the banks will have to ask their customers for information such as birthplace, passports held etc. In principle, they could demand to see a birth certificate, whiich would show a US place of birth. Another concern is that reportinng such information to the IRS will in many cases put them in violation of the confidentiality laws of their home country.

    The unknowing US citizens are probably the minority. Most dual citizens probably know that they are considered US citizens but haven’t wanted to go to the trouble of filing a mountain worth of paperwork. The law was designed to crack down on Americans who are evading taxes with foreign bank accounts (as the recent Swiss cases illustrated). But these dual citizens aren’t tax evaders. They pay everything they owe in the country they live in and earn the money in and in most cases actually don’t owe anything to the IRS, but haven’t filed returns (and often didn’t know they were required to).

    Many are considering renouncing their US citizenship. Apparently, they had so many inquiries at the consulate in Toronto that they are running group sessions to lay out the pros and cons.

  142. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    Scientist: Also, financial institutions all over the world are very concerned, because now they have to identify which customers might be US citizens,

    I haven’t been asked. When does this supposedly go into effect?

    There is a US/Australia tax treaty in effect which controls the tax status of expats.

  143. avatar
    Rickey December 3, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Way off topic here, but you’ve piqued my curiosity.How would the US government even know such a person (the unknowing US citizen in Canada) even exists? That person would not have applied for or ever used a US social security number, wouldn’t have a US passport.As far as I know there is no mechanism by which the federal government tracks state-issued birth certificates, or even has access to them — and certainly the IRS isn’t digging into decades-old records to try to chase down tax evaders.

    This is interesting. A friend from high school met and married an Australian man in Idaho. She gave birth to a daughter in Idaho and then moved to Australia when the girl was an infant.

    A number of years ago the daughter decided to move to New York with her Aussie fiance. She applied for a SSN and as I recall she had to jump through some hoops to prove that she has dual U.S.-Australian citizenship so she could legally work here. However, after a year or two she and her fiance moved back to Australia because he has a medical condition and they found the cost of medical care and health insurance to be prohibitive here.

    This of course means that the IRS knows about her. I wonder if they are after her to file tax returns now that she has returned to Australia? I’ll have to e-mail her and ask.

  144. avatar
    Rickey December 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Observer:
    Corsi, at WND, writes that Obama used the names “Barry Soetoro,” and “Soebarkah” in Indonesia.

    The birthers continue to complain that Obama hasn’t shown proof that he legally changed his name back to Obama after he returned to the U.S.

    Of course, they are untroubled by the fact that there is no evidence that Obama ever had his name legally changed from Obama to Soetoro in the first place.

  145. avatar
    Steve December 3, 2011 at 8:50 pm #

    When was the first mention of this two-citizen parent theory? I don’t remember anyone talking about it during the 2008 campaign.

  146. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    Keith: I haven’t been asked. When does this supposedly go into effect?
    There is a US/Australia tax treaty in effect which controls the tax status of expats.

    Some time in 2014. Here is an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/us-taxman-to-go-easy-on-american-residents-in-canada/article2257395/

    The tax treaty will prevent dual taxation-in other words any taxes you pay to Auustralia can be credited on your US taxes and vice versa. It doesn’t relieve US citizens of filing Us taxes.

  147. avatar
    marlio December 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Anyone who has half a brain, knows that obama is not qualified to be president. Even if he was born in the united states, which he may have been, ( if he is the son of Malcolm X), he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lulu Soetoro. He again lost it, when he traveled to pakistan, using an indonesian passport. He has also committed fraud, by claiming to be a foreigner, to qualify for a Pell Grant to attend college in the United States, if he was not an american citizen. I seriously doubt he wrote any of the books, he claims to have written, or that he graduated Harvard or Columbia. I think he is a con artist and his handlers tell him what to say, when to say it and how high to jump. I think he, his wife and children are all a plant and that Pelosi, REid, and others have committed FRaud and treason and should all be sent to jail for crime against American Citizens.

  148. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    marlio: Anyone who has half a brain, knows that obama is not qualified to be president

    However, those with a complete brain know that he is.

  149. avatar
    G December 3, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    During the 2008 campaign, not really, no. The origin of any of this two-citizen parent nonsense seems to have been made up by Leo Donofrio. His early writings that inspired this kookiness do go back to October of 2008…so in a sense, that was still the 2008 campaign…but really only the very tail end of it…

    It really didn’t take off steam until most of the original Birther claims of “born in Kenya” crashed and burned to the point of flaming out.

    The 2 citizen parent nonsense only picked up because there never was any merit to the Birther’s claims…they simply can’t accept the 2008 election results and when their main lies couldn’t cut it anymore, they did what they always do and moved the goalposts and therefore began to coalesce around fall-back positions, such as the 2 citizen parent claptrap, which they could try to pull as an excuse to still deny him, despite being clearly born in HI.

    Steve: When was the first mention of this two-citizen parent theory? I don’t remember anyone talking about it during the 2008 campaign.

  150. avatar
    G December 3, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    Well, being brain damaged and missing half a brain could sure explain why someone would fall for the garbage you spew. Thanks for explaining it!

    Meanwhile, back in the world of normal people with full-brains, there is no real question about the President’s place of birth, parentage or NBC status.

    Thanks for playing. Now off you go, back to the ward where they can provide proper care for half-brained half-wits…

    marlio: Anyone who has half a brain, knows that obama is not qualified to be president. Even if he was born in the united states, which he may have been, ( if he is the son of Malcolm X), he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lulu Soetoro. He again lost it, when he traveled to pakistan, using an indonesian passport. He has also committed fraud, by claiming to be a foreigner, to qualify for a Pell Grant to attend college in the United States, if he was not an american citizen. I seriously doubt he wrote any of the books, he claims to have written, or that he graduated Harvard or Columbia. I think he is a con artist and his handlers tell him what to say, when to say it and how high to jump. I think he, his wife and children are all a plant and that Pelosi, REid, and others have committed FRaud and treason and should all be sent to jail for crime against American Citizens.

  151. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    G: During the 2008 campaign, not really, no. The origin of any of this two-citizen parent nonsense seems to have been made up by Leo Donofrio. His early writings that inspired this kookiness do go back to October of 2008…so in a sense, that was still the 2008 campaign…but really only the very tail end of it

    And of course Obama announced he was running in February 2007 and had actually been considered a potential candidate from the moment he gave the Keynote speech at the 2004 convention. And all that time his father’s being a Kenyan student was common knowledge. Obama wrote a best-selling book about it for Pete’s sake and mentioned it in most of his speeches.

    And yet we are to believe that during all that time, no legal scholar, member of Congress, journalist, or, most importantly, no opponent in the Democratic or Republican party stood up and said, “Wait a minute, Mr Obama, you;re not eligible.” I mean, this is basically like a marathon, where someone jumps onto the course 200 meters from the finish line and the other runners just shrug and say, “Oh well, you won”. Hillary didn’t spend 2 years running for President just to shrug off losing to an ineligible opponent. Nor did McCain. The idea is simply ludicrous.

  152. avatar
    marlio December 3, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    Well obviously, those of you who actually believe this clown, in office, whom you call your President, is qualified, must have an acorn sized brain, to drink this tripe. YOu were not allowed to live in Indonesia or attend their schools unless you became and Indonesian Citizen. This country did not ALLOW dual citizenship, so obama Lost his american citizenship if he ever HAD it!!!. This guy probably couldnt tie his shoe laces, if he didnt have someone standing over him, as he cant speak without a teleprompter, because he doesnt know the issues. This man is not a qualified president and I believe he is a muslim as well, and the whole family is a plant. Obviously hes a very good con artist, because alot of democrats believe him but some are beginning to see the light!

  153. avatar
    marlio December 3, 2011 at 11:05 pm #

    I was being facetious G, but you will probably have to look up the definition of the word.

  154. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Ignore the desperate, trolling, mentally challenged birther bigot.

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
    – US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

  155. avatar
    AnotherBird December 4, 2011 at 12:15 am #

    The problem is that nothing has been provided that suggest anything. Did you know that Indonesia has visas? More specifically residency visas. I guess not.

    Indonesia not allowing dual citizens, doesn’t result in the individual losing their non-Indonesian citizenship. This should be obvious.

    It is time that you need to do some research on Indonesia citizenship, visas, and there history. They maybe very informative, and there don’t require you to like Obama.

    marlio:
    Well obviously, those of you who actually believe this clown, in office, whom you call your President, is qualified, must have an acorn sized brain, to drink this tripe.YOu were not allowed to live in Indonesia or attend their schools unless you became and Indonesian Citizen.This country did not ALLOW dual citizenship, so obama Lost his american citizenship if he ever HAD it!!!.This guy probably couldnt tie his shoe laces, if he didnt have someone standing over him, as he cant speak without a teleprompter, because he doesnt know the issues.This man is not a qualified president and I believe he is a muslim as well, and the whole family is a plant.Obviously hes a very good con artist, because alot of democrats believe him but some are beginning to see the light!

  156. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 4, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    Scientist:
    That is why this new law is causing such a ruckus. Any bank that does any business in the US (which is every decent sized bank in the world) will have to ask all of their customers whether they were born in the US or have US citizenship through birth abroad to US parents.

    Do you have a citation of some sort? The links you provided don’t say anything about dual citizenship — the articles are about ex-pats who probably open bank accounts using their US ID — it’s not saying that the banks have to ask questions about multiple nationalities. I mean, presumably they can have one line on the account form asking the depositor to identify citizenship (one country only). So dual nationals will identify the country of residence — no reporting required.

  157. avatar
    G December 4, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    Hopefully you are being facetious about your entire rant. I’d hate to think anyone could be that wrongheaded about so many things and have such an utter lack of self-awareness or self-respect to come across as such a ranting loon.

    Oh, little fun trivia bit. Facetious is the only word in the English language with all the vowels appearing in the proper order. For those sticklers who like to point out that y can sometimes be considered a 6th vowel sound…facetiously. Still works.

    marlio: I was being facetious G, but you will probably have to look up the definition of the word.

  158. avatar
    Keith December 4, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    marlio: YOu were not allowed to live in Indonesia or attend their schools unless you became and Indonesian Citizen.

    Wrong.

    Total Fail.

    Since the rest of your diatribe is based on this incredibly insane nonsense, you can go climb back in your box now, that’s a nice little racist.

  159. avatar
    Arthur December 4, 2011 at 4:01 am #

    marlio’s comments hardly deserve refutation, since they have been debunked numerous times by multiple authorities. I was slightly amused by his trailer-park style and ham-fisted typing, but we see these things so often in birthers that they’ve become dull with repetition.

    On the other hand, I’m willing to give marlio credit for his creative mangling of punctuation, grammar, and metaphor when he wrote, “Well obviously, those of you who actually believe this clown, in office, whom you call your President, is qualified, must have an acorn sized brain, to drink this tripe.”

    Wow. Trying to decipher that sentence is like trying to read the offal of a sacraficial bull. Which reminds me, mario, tripe IS offal, an organ meat– typically the stomach of a cow. You eat it, you don’t drink it.

  160. avatar
    Majority Will December 4, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    G: Oh, little fun trivia bit. Facetious is the only word in the English language with all the vowels appearing in the proper order. For those sticklers who like to point out that y can sometimes be considered a 6th vowel sound…facetiously. Still works.

    To take a line from Alexander Pope, here’s why a little learning can be a dangerous thing!

    😀

    Caesious (a botanical adjective for a waxy, bluish gray coating) is the shortest word in the English language that contains all five common vowels in alphabetical order.

    Acheilous, acheirous, aerobious, arsenious, arterious, autecious, facetious, and parecious are next with nine letters each.

    Suoidea is the shortest word in the English language that contains all five main vowels in reverse alphabetical order. Other words with this property are scarce; they include the ten letter words duoliteral and unoriental, the fourteen letter word subcontinental, and the fifteen letter words neuroepithelial and uncomplimentary.

    Abstemiously has twelve letters with all six vowels in alphabetical order.

    Facetiously is the shortest word in the English language that contains all six vowels in alphabetical order with eleven letters.

    The fourteen letter words adventitiously and sacrilegiously have this property but also have repeated vowels.

    (source: http://www.rinkworks.com/words/oddities.shtml)

  161. avatar
    Scientist December 4, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    Expelliarmus: Do you have a citation of some sort? The links you provided don’t say anything about dual citizenship — the articles are about ex-pats who probably open bank accounts using their US ID — it’s not saying that the banks have to ask questions about multiple nationalities. I mean, presumably they can have one line on the account form asking the depositor to identify citizenship (one country only). So dual nationals will identify the country of residence — no reporting required.

    You are misreading it. The law applies to anyone who holds US citizenship, whether or not they hold other citizenships. It even appplies to those who hold or have held permanent residency in the US. Here is a case of someone born in the US to 2 Canadian students who returned to Canada 4 days after she was born. She has no US ID other than a biirth certificate, so obviously she opened her bank account with Canadian ID.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/irs-bearing-down-on-americans-in-canada/article2059284/

    What does this have to do with presidential elligibility? Nothing directly, except to illustrate that citizenship laws are not necessarily rational. At least if the US wants to take away thiis person’s life savings, she should have the right to come back here, live for 14 years and run for President

  162. avatar
    Scientist December 4, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    marlio: This man is not a qualified president and I believe he is a muslim as well, and the whole family is a plant

    Oh, my, yes. How could Obama’s family be real? I mean Newt and his 3 wives and countless bjs on the side (while impeaching Clinton for his). That’s real. And Herman Cain and his mistress and the women he hits up and the thousands he hasn’t gotten around to hitting up yet. That’s real. And Michelle Bachmann’s gay husband. That’s real. But Obama’s loving wife and 2 nice daughters is totally fake..

  163. avatar
    bovril December 4, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Is it just me or does this sound sooooooo Tracy/KBOA…….?

  164. avatar
    Lupin December 4, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    marlio: Anyone who has half a brain…,

    …has twice as many brains as you have.

  165. avatar
    G December 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    AWESOME!!! Thanks.

    Majority Will: To take a line from Alexander Pope, here’s why a little learning can be a dangerous thing! Caesious (a botanical adjective for a waxy, bluish gray coating) is the shortest word in the English language that contains all five common vowels in alphabetical order.Acheilous, acheirous, aerobious, arsenious, arterious, autecious, facetious, and parecious are next with nine letters each.Suoidea is the shortest word in the English language that contains all five main vowels in reverse alphabetical order. Other words with this property are scarce; they include the ten letter words duoliteral and unoriental, the fourteen letter word subcontinental, and the fifteen letter words neuroepithelial and uncomplimentary.Abstemiously has twelve letters with all six vowels in alphabetical order.Facetiously is the shortest word in the English language that contains all six vowels in alphabetical order with eleven letters.The fourteen letter words adventitiously and sacrilegiously have this property but also have repeated vowels.(source: http://www.rinkworks.com/words/oddities.shtml)

  166. avatar
    G December 4, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    KBOA has been busy doing her usual obsessive and enraged stalking of anyone she encounters who doesn’t agree with her madness. Lately, she’s decided to hassle one of the NH reps on the D side, who made the innocent mistake of responding to one of her missives. Her delusions have gone so far as to include him as “part of the conspiracy” in 2 of her video rants:

    http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/videos/kenyanbornobamacorn.111125.html

    bovril: Is it just me or does this sound sooooooo Tracy/KBOA…….?

  167. avatar
    brygenon December 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Scientist: And Michelle Bachmann’s gay husband. That’s real.

    No, that’s a smear, and with all the reasons not to elect Bachmann and all the ways to debunk birthers, we don’t need it.

  168. avatar
    Rickey December 4, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    marlio:
    Anyone who has half a brain, knows that obama is not qualified to be president.Even if he was born in the united states, which he may have been, ( if he is the son of Malcolm X), he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lulu Soetoro.He again lost it, when he traveled to pakistan, using an indonesian passport.He has also committed fraud, by claiming to be a foreigner, to qualify for a Pell Grant to attend college in the United States, if he was not an american citizen.I seriously doubt he wrote any of the books, he claims to have written, or that he graduated Harvard or Columbia.I think he is a con artist and his handlers tell him what to say, when to say it and how high to jump.I think he, his wife and children are all a plant and that Pelosi, REid, and others have committed FRaud and treason and should all be sent to jail for crime against American Citizens.

    1, There is no evidence that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetero. But even if there was an adoption, it would have had no effect upon Obama’s U.S. citizenship (which was confirmed by the State Department before he and his mother moved to Indonesia).

    2. If Obama had lost his U.S. citizenship while he was in Indonesia, how could he lose it “again” when he traveled to Pakistan?

    3. Why would Obama have claimed to be a foreigner to qualify for a Pell Grant? Pell Grants are primarily for U.S. citizens. Perhaps you have been confused and suckered by the April Fools joke which said that Obama went to college on a Fulbright scholarship.

    4. I think that all people who write notes as stupid and ill-informed as yours should be sent to jail for crimes against humanity.

  169. avatar
    gorefan December 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    marlio: Anyone who has half a brain,

    I wonder sometimes what people like this are going to do when President Obama is reelected.

  170. avatar
    Rickey December 4, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    gorefan: I wonder sometimes what people like this are going to do when President Obama is reelected.

    I suspect that a lot of half-brains will be exploding.

  171. avatar
    bovril December 4, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    @G

    And qu’elle suprise, KBOA continues to devolve……………looking on the bright side her insane actions are the best possible way to alienate as many people as possbile from Birfoons and make more Obots’s….. 😎

  172. avatar
    Steve December 4, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    Scientist: And of course Obama announced he was running in February 2007 and had actually been considered a potential candidate from the moment he gave the Keynote speech at the 2004 convention.And all that time his father’s being a Kenyan student was common knowledge.Obama wrote a best-selling book about it for Pete’s sake and mentioned it in most of his speeches.

    And yet we are to believe that during all that time, no legal scholar, member of Congress, journalist, or, most importantly, no opponent in the Democratic or Republican party stood up and said, “Wait a minute, Mr Obama, you;re not eligible.” I mean, this is basically like a marathon, where someone jumps onto the course 200 meters from the finish line and the other runners just shrug and say, “Oh well, you won”.Hillary didn’t spend 2 years running for President just to shrug off losing to an ineligible opponent.Nor did McCain.The idea is simply ludicrous.

    If you ask Garland over on the Amazon forum about why McCain didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility, he’d say something about McCain being a one-world government guy.
    I always thought conservatives understood competition. They’re always ridiculing the whole “trophies for everybody” thing. You’d think they’d understand that an election is a competitive event, with a winner and losers. Especially in a Presidential election, the major parties’ candidates are going to do whatever it takes to win, using whatever damning information they have about the other party’s candidtate. And certainly, nobody who is campaiging for one candidate (like Linda Lingle) would do anything to help his main rival.

  173. avatar
    The Magic M December 5, 2011 at 4:25 am #

    marlio: he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lulu Soetoro. He again lost it, when he traveled to pakistan, using an indonesian passport. He has also committed fraud, by claiming to be a foreigner, to qualify for a Pell Grant to attend college in the United States, if he was not an american citizen.

    So, summing up, he lost his citizenship and thus became a foreigner, but claiming to be a foreigner to get a grant for foreign students (which Pell isn’t) was a lie nonetheless.
    I.e. Obama was at the same time a foreigner and not a foreigner.

    I think that’s stupid even for the bottom of the delusional birther barrel.
    I actually much prefer the honest birthers who plainly state “I don’t care what his papers say, he’s not American”. At least those don’t try to hide their hatred (and often racism) behind contrived nonsense.

  174. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 5, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Scientist: You are misreading it. The law applies to anyone who holds US citizenship, whether or not they hold other citizenships. It even appplies to those who hold or have held permanent residency in the US. Here is a case of someone born in the US to 2 Canadian students who returned to Canada 4 days after she was born. She has no US ID other than a biirth certificate, so obviously she opened her bank account with Canadian ID.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/irs-bearing-down-on-americans-in-canada/article2059284/

    OK, I see your link, but the article doesn’t make any sense, because it claims that there is a “new US law” that requires Canadian banks to report information to the IRS.

    That is impossible.

    It is pretty much the same logic as the birther argument that Obama is a British citizen by birth or that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.

    The US cannot pass laws requiring Canadian banks to do anything.

    It is very possible that there is a treaty that the Canadian government has entered,with the US, and Canadian laws enacted to enforce that treaty….. but why should I believe an article that gets that elemental fact wrong?

    I’m sorry. I don’t have a skeptical brain that works only when I visit WND or talk about birthers. If the article can’t explain the source of the supposed “law”, then I just don’t buy it.

  175. avatar
    Scientist December 5, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    Expelliarmus: OK, I see your link, but the article doesn’t make any sense, because it claims that there is a “new US law” that requires Canadian banks to report information to the IRS.
    That is impossible.

    Really? Impossible? Here is a summary from the IRS websiite http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=236664,00.html

    The law imposes obligations on Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) to track and report on US taxpayers, which means US citizens (whether they know they are citiizens or not) and permanent residents.

    Now you ask how can the US enforce a law against FFIs? Do you read the news much? Since the financial crisis of 2008 and the current situation, surely every sentient person should be aware that the financial system is global and interlinked. Every large bank operates throughout the world. Just as Citibank operates in over 100 countries so do the large European, Japanese, Canadian, etc. banks operate all over the world. And guess which country every single one of them has operations in? That’s right, the good old USA. All the large foreign banks have US subsidiaries. Most are traded on the NYSE. They lend money here and raise capital here. They simply cannot afford not to operate in the US. That is how the US enforces its laws all over the world.

    It’s fine to be skeptical, but skepticism should lead to further research to determine whether something is true or not, not “That is impossible”, when clearly it isn’t impossible at all.

  176. avatar
    Scientist December 5, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    Steve: If you ask Garland over on the Amazon forum about why McCain didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility, he’d say something about McCain being a one-world government guy.

    Was his running mate a one-world government girl? She had an hour to debate Biden-nothing stopped her from saying, “Senator, your running mate is inelligible because his daddy wasn’t a citiizen.” I must have gone to the bathroom when she raised that point. At some point the conspiracy involves every human being on the planet, at which point it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just life.

  177. avatar
    The Magic M December 5, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Scientist: At some point the conspiracy involves every human being on the planet

    Conspiracy theories only “work” as long as there is a claim of an actual conspiracy, i.e. something going on “behind the scenes” perpetrated by a small group of people, unknown to the general public.
    As soon as the issue gets public coverage (such as 9/11 truthers, Moon landing hoaxers or birthers), the “small group of people” needs to grow exponentially to keep the conspiracy theory (pseudo-)consistent. And soon the number of people allegedly involved becomes so large that it appears ridiculous even to the most skeptical people, so only the true loons remain faithful.
    Thus, in a way, going public is the kiss of death for every conspiracy theory.

    (As an aside, one of my former favourite cranks – whose claim was the usual “the Jews have conspired to destroy our country” crap – eventually ended up claiming that about 30-35 million people, nearly half the population, were part of the conspiracy. He claimed they were “Jews posing as Christians” and similar drivel. I think he stopped his nonsense when he had to serve some time in prison for threatening people with guns and sending death threats to officials.)

  178. avatar
    Observer December 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    At WND http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977 Corsi argues that the CRS Report accepts dicta in Wong Kim Ark but dismisses, as dicta, “the only Supreme Court definition” in Minor v. Happersett, 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.”

    Corsi’s problem is that there is no “definition” in the Minor case, only a statement (true enough as far as it goes) that those children who are born to citizens in the U.S. are natural born citizens. The Minor v. Happersett opinion never stated that ONLY children born to citizen parents were natural born. “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.” This statement was not necessary to the holding, which ruled that women citizens, whether natural born or naturalized, had no right to voted in state elections under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution.

    As to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” it not only said that “there have been doubts,” but also said it was not necessary to solve these doubts.” The Court expressly left the question open, so there was no necessary implication that only children with citizen parents were natural born.

    The open question of the citizenship of children with alien parents was resolved by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark, when it held that a son born to alien Chinese parents in the United States was an American citizen.

  179. avatar
    Observer December 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    In his column at WND http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977 Corsi argues that the 14th Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to redefining “natural born citizen” under Article 2, Section 1. This is false.

    The14th Amendment was ratified, in part, to reverse the Dred Scott decision, a case which held that neither an African American held in slavery, nor a freed African American, could ever be a citizen of the United States or of a State. In that decision, Chief Justice Taney had effectively amended the Constitution judicially to limit citizenship to “white” citizens.

    The decision limited membership in The House and the Senate to “white” citizens, the privileges and immunities of citizens to “white” citizens, the diversity jurisdiction of federal courts to suits between “white” citizens, and the Presidency to natural born “white” citizens.

    The 14th Amendment effectively changed the meaning of “citizen” in all these clauses back to the original intent of the founders in order to include all persons born or naturalized as citizens, without regard to race. They removed that doubt for the present and for the future.

    The framers of the 14th Amendment expressly recognized that every person, regardless of race or color, who was born within the United States, was a citizen, and that the courts had cast doubt on this principle.

    Because the 14th Amendment restored the meaning of “citizen” in “natural born citizen” to include African Americans and all other persons without regard to race or color, it is just false to say it “makes no reference whatsoever to redefining ‘natural born citizen.'”

    It clearly affected the “citizen” element of “natural born citizen.”

  180. avatar
    G December 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Just more futile efforts by WND as it desperately flails about in whiney madness because the CRS Report utterly demolishes all of their bogus claims.

    Observer: At WND http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977 Corsi argues that the CRS Report accepts dicta in Wong Kim Ark but dismisses, as dicta, “the only Supreme Court definition” in Minor v. Happersett, 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.”

    Observer: In his column at WND http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977 Corsi argues that the 14th Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to redefining “natural born citizen” under Article 2, Section 1. This is false.

  181. avatar
    Observer December 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Over at WND http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=372977 Jerome Corsi claims that CRS wants to read common law into the “natural born citizen” requirement, and that CRS maintains that a “natural born subject” was anyone born on English soil, jus soli, rather than jus sanguinis, a right conferred by blood by the citizenship of the parents.

    But Corsi is wrong, and the CRS Report is right to look the common law for light on the meaning of “natural born.” The Supreme Court and the state and federal courts have universally referred to the common law for insight into the meaning of common law terms in the Constitution, including writs of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and numerous other terms, so it is completely appropriate to consult the common law for the meaning of “natural born.” The Constitution used all these terms without definition because they were fully understood by the people and officials of the United States at the time.

    At common law, “natural born” covered all those born within the allegiance, protection and jurisdiction of the King, even of alien parents. In the words of its framers in 1866, the 14th Amendment was declaratory of this concept, and confirmed that all who are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. An infant born anywhere in the United States is born subject to its protection and jurisdiction. If its parents die, the appropriate agency of government sees to its welfare and safekeeping. The parents, even if aliens, are subject to American power and jurisdiction. While they may citizens of their home country, they owe an allegiance to the United States while under its protection and cannot wage war against it or give aid and comfort to its enemies.

    Jurisdiction includes power, and the United States has plenary power over all children born on its soil (other than children of diplomats and hostile military), and the home countries of alien parents have none. Since the 14th Amendment provides that all who are born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction are citizens, those babies are citizens.

    The laws of America have always required inquiry into the place of birth, not parentage, for those born in the United States. Parentage is only relevant to those born to U.S. citizen parents outside the country. “Jus soli” has always been the rule for American citizens born in the United States. “Jus sanguinis” has only applied to persons born to American citizens in foreign countries.

    Corsi later attacks CRS for writing that 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.” Corsi asserts that the founder’s had a concern that being a citizen was not sufficient for a person to ascend to the presidency, that there was a subset of citizens identified as “natural born citizens” demanding consideration of parental citizenship and allegiance,

    Corsi is wrong about the concerns of the founders. While the Constitution was drafted, there were many public suggestions that the struggling republic needed royal, noble, or foreign military leadership. The names of children of King George, European nobles, and foreign military leaders were being bruited about. The founders feared that a foreign leader might persuade Congress to naturalize him by legislation and make him eligible for the Presidency. John Jay wrote to Washington to “hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    So there is written evidence that the framers wanted to prevent foreign leaders with proven international ambition from taking power in the United States. The framers inserted a provision to prevent the Congress from granting citizenship to such a foreign leader, barring any naturalized foreigner from taking power. They worried about the admission of grown-up, adult foreigners into the administration of the government. If they were concerned about the children of non-citizens, they certainly disguised that fear effectively.

    This is why they excluded foreign naturalized citizens from the Presidency. There is no evidence that any founder ever wanted to bar any children born in the United States from the Presidency.

    The idea that citizens born in the United States come in two varieties, one born to two citizens and the other to one or two alien parents, might appeal to Corsi and his adherents, but there is no textual evidence in the Constitution that supports the inference, and no evidence that any framer or founder ever supported such an idea.

    In sum, John Jay expressly warned of the admission of “foreigners” into our government. There is nothing in the word “foreigner” that implies that a child born in the United States is a foreigner.

    In the over 220 years until 2008, there had never been a suggestion that citizens born in the United States must be sorted into two categories based on parentage. The courts have been adamant that only naturalized citizens are excluded from the Presidency. In all other respects, all citizens are equal in the dignity of their citizenship and in all their rights and privileges under the Constitution.

    Corsi’s argument is with the Constitution, not with CRS.

  182. avatar
    roadburner December 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    marlio: and I believe he is a muslim as well,

    and the relevence of this is what exactly?

    he could be a follower of the hairy black pudding god, and it wouldn´t make a blind bit of difference.

    anyway, doing some of the things he´s been publicly seen doing (and criticised for), he´s a pretty poor example of a muslim.

  183. avatar
    James M December 6, 2011 at 1:00 am #

    roadburner: and the relevence of this is what exactly?

    Presumably, if he were an observant Muslim, it would “speak to character.”

    Instead, it’s just another thing that they can invent and then use as a benchmark for him to fail to live up to, so that they can then say “they know nothing about him, he is an empty suit.”

  184. avatar
    James M December 6, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    Expelliarmus:

    The US cannot pass laws requiring Canadian banks to do anything.

    Well, US law cannot control what Canadian banks do in Canada. Doing business in the United States requires those Canadian banks to abide by United States law, though.

  185. avatar
    mike December 6, 2011 at 2:28 am #

    Leo Donofrio just discovered something materially wrong with Caskell’s Congressional report. I suggest you take a look. He is also preparing something that will undoubtedly blow holes in Caskell’s report. If you don’t know who Leo is, you should familiarize yourself with him.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  186. avatar
    G December 6, 2011 at 3:23 am #

    Old news, Mike. You should try actually reading through the commentary on this blog post (including the main article AND most importantly, the actual CRS report) before commenting and looking foolish.

    First of all, the report was written by Maskell, not Caskell.

    Second, we are well aware of Leo and his weak and meaningless claim (i.e. whine) on this particular issue. You’d be well aware of that if you actually took the time to read before posting.

    Third, if you did that, you’d realize that Leo’s criticism’s have been shown to be fruitless and there simply is no substance to Leo’s arguments.

    If you actually read Maskell’s CRS report, you’d realize that all the main Birther rumours have been throroughly debunked via the history of US laws and how they work.

    Finally, you sent a link to Leo’s main page and not the particular article to which you were referring. Try to do better sourcing next time. Of course, the article you refer to, which he wrote on 12/1 can be found further down the page.

    However, the top article that pops up at the moment is Leo’s hysterical and nonsensical rant re: FEMA camps, etc. in a bill recently passed in Congress. HINT: Read the actual bill and not be so gullible as to just buy Leo’s bunk wholesale. He cites Marco Rubio’s opinion on the law and Rubio is correct; Leo is wrong. Leo is a crap pseudo-lawyer, with a history of spectacular failure in that arena. He’s really is a poker player and sometimes avante-garde artist who “dabbles” in other areas of which he is ill-equipped. Leo’s whole argument is bogus, because Leo hysterically parses the english language in ways that do not apply to the context of the bill, nor how the english language actually works. Leo needs to go back to grammar school and stop embarrasing himself.

    mike: Leo Donofrio just discovered something materially wrong with Caskell’s Congressional report. I suggest you take a look. He is also preparing something that will undoubtedly blow holes in Caskell’s report. If you don’t know who Leo is, you should familiarize yourself with him.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  187. avatar
    Majority Will December 6, 2011 at 7:24 am #

    G:
    Old news, Mike.You should try actually reading through the commentary on this blog post (including the main article AND most importantly, the actual CRS report) before commenting and looking foolish.

    First of all, the report was written by Maskell, not Caskell.

    Second, we are well aware of Leo and his weak and meaningless claim (i.e. whine) on this particular issue.You’d be well aware of that if you actually took the time to read before posting.

    Third, if you did that, you’d realize that Leo’s criticism’s have been shown to be fruitless and there simply is no substance to Leo’s arguments.

    If you actually read Maskell’s CRS report, you’d realize that all the main Birther rumours have been throroughly debunked via the history of US laws and how they work.

    Finally, you sent a link to Leo’s main page and not the particular article to which you were referring.Try to do better sourcing next time.Of course, the article you refer to, which he wrote on 12/1 can be found further down the page.

    However, the top article that pops up at the moment is Leo’s hysterical and nonsensical rant re: FEMA camps, etc. in a bill recently passed in Congress.HINT:Read the actual bill and not be so gullible as to just buy Leo’s bunk wholesale.He cites Marco Rubio’s opinion on the law and Rubio is correct; Leo is wrong. Leo is a crap pseudo-lawyer, with a history of spectacular failure in that arena.He’s really is a poker player and sometimes avante-garde artist who “dabbles” in other areas of which he is ill-equipped.Leo’s whole argument is bogus, because Leo hysterically parses the english language in ways that do not apply to the context of the bill, nor how the english language actually works.Leo needs to go back to grammar school and stop embarrasing himself.

    It’s also possible “mike” is Leo’s P.R. sock puppet.

    It wouldn’t be surprising as Leo sinks deeper and deeper into his pitiful and pathetic paranoia pit.

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
    – US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

  188. avatar
    James M December 6, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    mike: If you don’t know who Leo is, you should familiarize yourself with him.

    The people on this forum are far more knowledgeable that you realize, particularly when it comes to infamous birther attorneys like Donofrio.

    I’m no fan of SB1867 myself, but analysis by a kook doesn’t help anything.

  189. avatar
    Lupin December 6, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    mike: If you don’t know who Leo is, you should familiarize yourself with him.

    And before that, I suggest also familiarizing yourself with Bozzo the Clown.

    Leo is a bottom-feeding attorney and gambler with zilch credibility when it comes to constitutional law.

  190. avatar
    Observer December 6, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    mike wrote: “If you don’t know who Leo is, you should familiarize yourself with him.”

    Gee, mike, I resemble that remark.

    I did actually discuss Leo’s theory up above, on Dec. 1st at 12:57 PM and on Dec. 2d, at 1:27 PM. Your should familiarize yourself with those posts.
    On his site, Leo said to himself, Self, “Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?”

    Sorry, but the Court really did “state” just that. Leo cropped the second sentence from the Court’s full statement, but here it is again for all to read:
    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, Cal.”

    As the full paragraph states, “[i]t is not disputed” that if the petitioner was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, and was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the U.S., then he is a U.S. citizen, and that “it is conceded” that he was found to be “a natural born citizen.”

    So the Court stated. But now Leo seems to claim that the statement is mere dicta because someone stated that the father was native born. But Leo has long elevated mere dicta in Minor v. Happersett to the level of legal sacred writ, so it ill behooves him to disregard a similar statement now. He is not allowed in legal discourse to pick and choose his dicta. To make a sound like the lawyers often make, counsel is estopped from now parsing dicta and holding when he has consistently ignored the distinction in the past.

    The Court said the son’s parents were “permanently domiciled,” not that they were citizens. It said that he was a citizen. It said that it was conceded that he was a natural born citizen.

    So the Court really did say that the son of two aliens was a natural born citizen.

    The father may well have been native born and a citizen, but no one knows his date or place of birth. All we have is a reported statement by a witness. There is no birth certificate. There is nothing in the opinion on the citizenship of the mother. The citizenship of the parents may only be inferred from the opinion. There were no definite facts of citizenship before the Court, only unsupported allegations. So the Court, in summarizing the law before it, made a statement which relied on permanent domicile rather than citizenship in concluding that the son was a natural born citizen.

  191. avatar
    James M December 6, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Lupin:

    And before that, I suggest also familiarizing yourself with Bozzo the Clown.

    Leo Donofrio couldn’t carry Bob Bell’s shoes.

  192. avatar
    Observer December 6, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Back in 2009, Leo made this bold prediction:

    “One of these days the Obama administration might serve up for your culinary consumption the most perfect long form birth certificate you could ever imagine. Hawaii officials will vouch for its authenticity under oath if need be. And numerous forensic experts will substantiate its veracity.

    “Then the POTUS eligibility movement is going to look like a vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2277722/posts

    Leo hit the nail on the head!

    The long form was perfect, officials vouched for it, and experts verified it.

    And the birther movement looks like a “vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.”

    I want Leo’s take on the 2012 Mayan end of the world!.

  193. avatar
    JD Reed December 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm #

    Haven’t read the Kwock Tuck Lee case file, but I’m planning to get around to it …. someday.
    However, if what I’ve read about it is accurate and fair analyses, then continuing to reflexively and stubbornly cite the Minor case as proving that two citizen parents were required for natural born status is destroyed. Kwock Tuck Lee drives the final nail in that particular coffin.
    For if. as stated above, the Supreme Court had no conclusive evidence before it as to Kwock’s parents’ citizenship, it had to rely on the best evidence available, that being the parents’ residency in the country. Thus that would have been necessary part of the Kwock case, not mere dicta, So that being the situation, it wouldn’t matter if Minor had required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship, the Kwock Tuck Lee court’s ruling would have thrown it on the trash heap of history. To say that Minor still imposes a two-citizen parent rule notwithstdanding Kwock Tuck Lee, would be like saying that Plessy v. Ferguson was not obliterated by Brown v. Board of Education — and that a southern state could even now choose to impose separate-race school attendance.

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Mr. Donofrio is no stranger to hyperbole.

    Observer: But Leo calls it a “monstrosity, a “deceitful exercise [that] alone strips the entire memo of all credibility,” “Frankensteining (sic) crap,”

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 6, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    My take on this will be presented in an upcoming article.

    Observer: I want Leo’s take on the 2012 Mayan end of the world!.

  196. avatar
    Daniel December 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My take on this will be presented in an upcoming article.

    I just happen to have written the complete and irrefutable explanation for the whole Mayan 2012 thing, Doc. I’ll send it to you if you like.

  197. avatar
    Keith December 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Lupin: And before that, I suggest also familiarizing yourself with Bozzo the Clown.

    Leo is a bottom-feeding attorney and gambler with zilch credibility when it comes to constitutional law.

    Why bring the USC basketball coach into this?

  198. avatar
    The Head Researcher December 6, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    Speaking of The Paraclete, I just took a few verbal pot shots at him and am trying to predict him a little..

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/waiting-for-the-paracletes-other-sandal-to-drop-or-what-is-the-sound-of-one-foot-stomping/

    I think Leo Donofrio is trying to resurrect himself. I could be wrong.

    The Head Researcher

  199. avatar
    G December 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Oooh! That should be fun! Can’t wait.

    Dr. Conspiracy: My take on this will be presented in an upcoming article.

    Double coolness! Maybe Doc will be able to append your take as a guest blog post…

    I get a kick out of the whole topic, so I’m looking forward to hearing both your takes. I’ll stock up on more popcorn in the meantime.

    Daniel: I just happen to have written the complete and irrefutable explanation for the whole Mayan 2012 thing, Doc. I’ll send it to you if you like.