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.
“Thanks Seizethecarp, but Obama Sr. had other wives, never divorced any and never served time in jail.”
To my knowledge, Obama Sr. had only one marriage and one legal wife in Kenya and that was to Kezia. The other two marriages were in the US and appear to me to be serial bigamous marriages under both US and Kenya (UK colonial) law.
See UK Daily Mail:
and:
We do not yet know “what matters by our constitution” as SCOTUS has not yet ruled on an on-point case other to say that “there is doubt” as to whether persons who do not have two citizen parents and born on US are NBC.
The 1948 BNA explicitly excludes Barry from being a UK subject if he was the illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage.
See 1948 BNA:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
It is not clear to me whether Sarah Herlihy's involvement was to legally protect Obama from ineligibility due to being a potential dual citizen or foreign birth or both. I don't believe there was any such trial of McCain or out-of-court settlement (link welcome, of course).
Yes, there was a non-binding resolution in the Senate supposedly affirming that McCain was NBC. But the Senate has no power to redefine the language of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS has that power, which is why the resolution was non-binding.
McCain's admitted problem had to do with being born outside the territorial USA and is totally different from Obama’s admitted problem of being the son of a UK subject. McCain does not admit to a dual citizen problem that he might have it he were born on off-base Panamanian soil as some claim. Obama does not admit to a non-US birth problem.
My suspicion is that Obama’s expensively hidden HI vital record opens a path to discovery of a non-US birth along with amendments that claim an HI birth. HI officials are bound to honor the amended conclusion of an HI birth but are legally unable to disclose the amendments or source of the original birth report and the claimed location of the birth.