The Fallacies of Congressional
Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s
citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes
in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was
born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”
Quasius’
argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies
of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in
his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos.
Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo
published in 2009:
“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion
appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is
entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S.
citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United
States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of
United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S.
residency requirements."
Then
he wrote in his 2011 CRS memo:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born
'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born
abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for
U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.
citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an 'alien' required to go through the legal
process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf .
In this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born
'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born
abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for
U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.
citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an 'alien' required to go through the legal
process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf .
In this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”
Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means. A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1: Idea, conception
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, it is true. He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.” As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement.
First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down
what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form. I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at
birth=CAB
All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen”
mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.
First, it is a tautology to
argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen. Second, this argument commits the fallacy of
affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one
is a NBC). Third, this argument suffers
from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the
middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning
the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of
NBCs). So, while the major and minor premises
are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false. We should see intuitively that the conclusion
does not follow from the two premises. An
easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following:
All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.
We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs
being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or
some other type of dog.
Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the
Maskell/Quasius statement. Now we will
test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument. To do that, we need to help Maskell and
Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one. Here we go:
All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.
This argument is valid because if the major and minor
premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound,
meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound
because its major premise is false. With
the major premise being false, so is its conclusion. Let me explain. First, the major premise, all “citizens at
birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and
Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there
does not exist any evidence that they did.
Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text
of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth”
or some variant thereof. Additionally, while
it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does
not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” If I am wrong, Bob Quasius can cite for us an
authoritative source which provides that all “citizens at birth” are “natural
born Citizens.” So there is the
challenge. Let Bob Quasius or anyone
else who might want to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which
demonstrates that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” By doing this, he will also be proving that
Jack Maskell is correct.
Anticipating that Bob Quasius
will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack
Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born
Citizen.” Using their exact words, they made
an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born
Citizen.” Even adjusting what they said
to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a
non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose.
Now
as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a
country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s
birth. This is the settled definition of
the clause under American national common law.
See Emer de Vattel, The Law of
Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel
1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253,
289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis
v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28
U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77
(1857) (J. Daniel concurring); Minor
v. Happersett, 88 U.S.
162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark
1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all
confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st
ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause
that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country
to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural
born Citizen.” The definition of a
“natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the
country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents)
who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both.
Here
is what this definition produces as logical statements: I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC; born in the country
=BIC; and born to citizen parents=BCPs
All BIC and BCPs are NBC.
All Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, all Xs are NBC.
All BIC and BCPs are NBC.
All Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, all Xs are NBC.
If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.
X
is not BIC and BCP.
Therefore,
X is not NBC.
If
and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.
X
is not BIC and BCPs.
Therefore,
X is not NBC.
All
NBCs are BIC and BCPs.
No
Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore,
no Xs are NBC.
The
Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders
in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.” They required this because they wanted to
protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices
from monarchical and foreign influence. For
the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the
nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be
born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States. Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born
to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz
(born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father),
Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal
(born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in
South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC)
to citizen parents (BCPs). Because they
acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all
of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also
Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the
United States. Under all of the above logical statements,
none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.”
The
inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither
“natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be
President.
Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.
June 2, 2013
Updated April 14, 2014
Updated April 14, 2014
####
Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
