The reference law review article:
Who’s pinging today?!?
The drumbeat is getting louder but will it “sell”?
Makes absolute perfect sense to me.
bookmark.
Still won’t matter.
I mean, get real. The rule of law is a phrase that 0bumble, the dems, and the government-run media are wholly unfamiliar with.
And, though it would have substantial legal merit should standing be resolved, it’s still going to be sold as “oh well”.
The only potential good that would come out of an adverse finding for Obumble would be that any legislation or treaty that he signed would (I believe) a) be considered null and void and b) would be punishable as fraud.
BTTT
birther bump
The Supreme Court ruled that they were in several cases handed down after this article was written. I guess that they weren't as impressed with Mr. Collins' arguement as Donofrio is.
I'd want to see a lot more documentation before I'd accept that.
"The law of nations" -- today's "international law" -- isn't a fixed code of laws, and in a matter like this, it probably doesn't prevail over the laws that nations make for themselves.
You can certainly argue that the law of nations -- or Vattel's ideas about it -- prevail over US law and the common law, but judges probably won't agree.
Most of the founders were familiar with the common law, and Blackstone, an important commentator of the common law doesn't have the same definition of "natural born" that Vattel does.
And herein lies the problem with B.O.
*lightbulb moment*
Ok , So Obama is an unconstitutional President because his father was a British citizen.
Get that a$$ OUT of MY house!
Regardless of where this all ends up, God bless those UCONN students for their tireless dedication to getting to the truth, whatever it may be.
I scrolled quickly through the Collins article and found one very interesting piece that potentially could knock out one of the arguments I (and some others) have made. We’ve been arguing to date that citizenship is passed through the father (thus the Wilson and Hoover argument ‘mother not born in US’ does not hold water; both fathers were US citizens).
However, in the Collins article, while he confirms that citizenship is passed through the father if the child is legitimate, if the child is not legitimate, which many suspect in the present case, citizenship passes through the mother.
Need a lawyer to figure it all out .. actually, need a team of lawyers. Or good UCONN law students ;)
What is the difference between “common law” (mentioned in the article as not present/recognized in the United States) and “natural law”?
Thanks