Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
Funny thing though, the courts seemingly had no doubts in 1847.

You're quoting the Plaintiff's argument, not an opinion of the Court.

198 posted on 08/26/2011 9:32:52 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]


To: Kleon
You're quoting the Plaintiff's argument, not an opinion of the Court.

After re-reading more at length, I think you are correct about this. Therefore it is relatively of little value. The court did not even address this issue in dismissing the case.

It does beg the question though. Why would JOHN A. BARRY's Attorney make the argument if it was widely known to have no merit? It also begs the further question, why was John A Barry permitted to keep his son from this same marriage, but not the daughter? Presumably, as far as the law is concerned, what should apply to the one, ought also apply to the other.

211 posted on 08/26/2011 10:57:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson