Prior to the advent of DNA, in human history the identification of the biological father depended on the sometimes highly suspect claims if the mother...augmented hopefully by resemblance in many cases, of course.
From colonial times up until very recently it is ONLY the LEGAL father that matters in determining citizenship of the baby.
Your own personal opinion or mine cannot overturn well established international law going back to the founding.
Minor v. Happersett distinguishes between NBC birth and birth to aliens, but if there is no LEGAL alien parent there can be no alien citizenship or legal citizenship conflict.
As has been frequently mentioned there is not even a marriage document for Obama’s parents, bigamous or not and Stanley Ann's representations as to who the did is are suspect and do not in any way bind the UK.
From colonial times up until very recently it is ONLY the LEGAL father that matters in determining citizenship of the baby.
Your own personal opinion or mine cannot overturn well established international law going back to the founding.
Minor v. Happersett distinguishes between NBC birth and birth to aliens, but if there is no LEGAL alien parent there can be no alien citizenship or legal citizenship conflict.
This is one of my longstanding criticism of our legal system; an unthinking adherence to precedence and ritual rather than just getting at the truth. It is my opinion that this sort of nonsense needs to be excised from our system of justice. The "exclusionary rule" is another example of this mindless dogma in action.
Now that we HAVE the ability, we should USE it. If DNA is good enough to establish guilt or innocence in criminal trials, it ought to be good enough to establish the truth in cases such as this.