President. we find the Court not even considering the point of how Maisenberg understood the question. but. rather. basing its decision on the rule of general applicability which it purported to lay down in the Nowak case: namely. that question 28 was "too ambiguous to sustain the fraudulent procurement charge based on petitioners answer to it." The Court may have had a right to say how one defendant understood this question. and therefore whether he knowingly gave a false answer. But the Court had no right to sayas it has said. in effectthat in future a defendant need only say he misunderstood the question. in order to be absolved of. any charge of answering it falsely. The Court went on to say: We also are of opinion that the Government has failed to prove by "clear. unequivocal. and convincing" evidence * * * that Maisenberg was not "attached to the principles of the Constitution." As in Nowak. the Government has attempted to prove its case indirectly by showing that Maisenberg was a member of the Communist Party during the 5 years preceding her naturalization and that she knew that the party was illegally advocating the violent overthrow of the United States. We think that the Government has adequately proved that Maisenberg was a member of the party during the pertinent 5year period. But. even making the same assumptions on behalf of the Government that were made in Nowakthat it was adequately shown that the party in 1938 advocated violent action for the overthrow of the Government and that lack of "attachment" could be proved by this methodthe Government still cannot prevail.
Keywords matched
naturalization