[AmericanVictory]

Of particular importance in this discussion is Hemenway's quote from the SCOTUS opininion in Scheider v. Rusk in which it is made absolutely clear that statutory law concerning naturalization has nothing to do with the eligibility requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and that statutory law cannot alter constitutional provisions. Berg seems to ignore this point just as he does the 19th century case law indicating the importance of Vattel's views on this point. It is perhaps fortunate for Colonel Hollister that Berg and his team resigned from the case, since he seems to needless and erroneously concede a fundamental point that is very much at issue.

One wonders how a self-described methodical law student can have failed so badly to research the law as to confuse statutuory law of naturalized citizenshship with the Constitutional requirement for presidential eligibilty that long preceded the 14th Amendment and was unaffected by it, as the Supreme Court points out. The quote in question was used by the 10th Circuit not long ago in the Craig case to make the point she seems completely ignorant of. What kind of a law student thinks statutes can alter the Constitution. Is that being taught in law schools these days?

[MHGinTN]

“What kind of a law student thinks statutes can alter the Constitution.(?)” Sham conservative/actually liberal ones, as this vacuous-brained girl shows.

[EDINVA]

Didn’t Obama/Soetoro’s attorneys argue the same thing, i.e., because he’s a citizen he’s qualified? Looks like lots of blue smoke and mirrors. And, they are banking on our collective ignorance to fall for the charade. So far it’s worked with 53% of the American public.

I’m not a lawyer, but have worked with some really excellent ones over the years. I would not put Berg in that category, he strikes me as more a showboat than scholar. JMHO.