Here the problem:
“The entire WKA decision is based on parsed & edited quotes from Kent’s work, not to mention that Grey in writing the opinion, completely disregarded his deciding opinion in Elk wherein he cited the law of nature as well as Vattel in determining the meaning of ‘subject tot he jurisdiction’.”
A majority of the none justices agreed or this would not be law. You can’t go back behind the decision and try to argue about Grey. That has absolutely NO LEGAL EFFECT OR FORCE.
If someone were to argue the case today, they would have to deal with the case, the ideas and reasoning in the case, and the application of law to the facts in the case.
IMHO, todays court would rubber stamp a lot of this stuff. That is my LEGAL OPINION OR THEORY. But until it is argued, and overturned, then Obama is NOT A USURPER. The case law clearly supports him.
This is where Orly Taitz went really really weird. When she lost in Georgia, rather than deal with the decision the judge handed down, on the legal merits, she turned and started calling the judge names and accusing him of things.
Hey, if you have a good case, you don’t need to do stuff like that. Lawyers win bad cases and lose good ones all the time. Either way, you respect the law.
parsy, who apologizes for the delay. I was in a birther food fight on another thread
Here's another good one to ponder from the 1903 Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure. It regards passports issued by the US State Dept and is under the section on ‘Evidence of Citizenship’:
2. Passports. A passport granted by the secretary of state of the United States, reciting that a certain individual is a citizen, is not admissible to prove such citizenship.
So much for that argument that a US passport automatically concludes one to be a US citizen.