The Fallacies of Congressional
Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
Reposted June 2, 2019
Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche
Republicans recently said:
“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.’”
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.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
.
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 2: a belief held: opinion, view
3: whim, fancy .” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
480 (1974). And this “opinion” only
“appears to support” that notion. Here,
we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to
what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this
“scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or
opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.
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, 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 were its “citizens” (at birth or after birth) 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. Daniels 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 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 in the U.S. and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme
Court. The two 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 was not
born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both
parents) who were its “citizens” (at birth or after birth) 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.
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
Reposted June 2, 2019
####
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
