[Seizethecarp]

"The “WERE NOT MARRIED” presumption, while that was probably not your intention, is also irrelevant. Kenya has a reasonably-sized Muslim population, in which, under Sharia law, polygamy is perfectly legal."

• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:

49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf

[Spaulding]

Thanks Seizethecarp, but Obama Sr. had other wives, never divorced any and never served time in jail. A fascinating attribute of British law is its richness. There is no requirement for a kind of uniqueness principle such as found in axiomatic systems like mathematics.

I have tried to pursue just a few legal provisions in the British law and began to realize the advantage of a somewhat fixed constitutional foundation: there is is usually just one correct determination. British common law often has more than one. Then, when there is a challenge, the only recourse is back to the House of Commons or, in the past, directly to the crown.

Another inconsistency in the Marriage Act of 1902 is that polygamy is “absolutely in accordance with Mohammedan law.” The British are proceeding to rectify that inconsistency by recognizing independent Sharia courts in England. The British are now making independent welfare payments to the several wives of a number of Muslim immigrants.

British common law can be very accommodating. Barristers can usually find a law to suit their client's case, leaving interpretation to the judges. Then success is predicated upon being of the correct class.

Whether the presumed Hawaiian marriage happened remains irrelevant. What matters by our Constitution is who the parents were. Obama has told us, many times, Obama Sr. is his father. These days a DNA test might be used if that claim is contested, But who would contest it? By the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barry was born a subject of the British Empire. Barry confirmed that on his own web site. He never claimed he was a natural born citizen, but said he was a “Native-born.” He knew exactly what he was saying to avoid prison, on that charge at least.

The law firm which defended McCain in his trial, settled out of court, challenging McCain's failure to satisfy Article II, also had a senior partner on Obama’s compaign board - Kendall and Ellis. They are experts on Article II. They paid a had a young associate to write a journal article attacking the natural born citizenship requirement: Sarah Herilhy,Chicaco-Kent Law Review, 2005. That suggests that the groundwork for the British subject was being laid as early as 2005. Herlihy talks lots about globalism and never once mentions Marshall, Jay, Waite, Hamilton. Time will tell whether this ploy will succeed completely, but if it does, we will be unlikely to read it in the completely state controlled media.