Replies

SCOTUS is not in the habit of wasting their time writing on issues that have been established and settled law in the US. If you are born in this country, (except children of diplomats) you are a natural born citizen. That has been the law for over the past century. I suggest you read the Wong Kim Ark v. US case from SCOTUS. It is the landmark case in this area of the law and has been cited in thousands of cases over the years from Immigration Court to US District Court to every Circuit Court of Appeals to SCOTUS.

Have you ever wondered why there is no credible conservative legal foundation (out of dozens) or an attorney, such as Mark Levin, have ever got involved in one of these Vattel birther cases. It is because there is zero legal merit to the Vattel Birther theory.

For an easier read on this issue, google the Ankeny v. Daniels case. It is from the 2008 election and the court held that Obama was eligible to be on the Indiana presidential ballot.

SCOTUS is not in the habit of wasting their time writing on issues that have been established and settled law in the US.

I agree. Good point. Now, maybe you can answer the question that squeezy punted. If Lynch v. Clarke was a compelling example of "established and settled law" in the U.S., why did Justice Gray write 32 more pages of decision after his third mention of the Lynch casein WKA?? I know why. Do you??

For an easier read on this issue, google the Ankeny v. Daniels case. It is from the 2008 election and the court held that Obama was eligible to be on the Indiana presidential ballot.

Well, no, the court found that the governor couldn't be sued for failing to vet presidential candidates. Nothing in that decision held that Obama was eligible for office.