If that case were applicable, then why wasn't it cited by somebody> as disqualifying Obama from the Presidency?
After all, it was no secret that his father was a British national. He even wrote of it in his "autobiography".
Yet, nobody raised the question once Obama announced for the Presidency. Not a single politician (most of whom are lawyers), not a single lawyer, not a single jurist, not a single political official of any stripe. In other words, among the thousands and thousands of people who would've a.) been in a position to know he wasn't eligible and b.) had a stake in the election results, nary a soul bothered to raise a peep.
If Happersett was operative, how could that be?
If Happersett was operative, how could that be?
Because the entire legal system is tainted with bad precedent, and/or bad interpretation of precedent, and they are unaware of it. They do not know that their understanding is wrong, nor do they know why it is wrong. They simply swallow what the momma bird lawyers have fed them when they were little bird lawyer wannabees.
A correct understanding requires you to start at the origin of the term in American law, and work your way forward from there. Suffice it to say, all the sources cited in support of "Anchor Baby" law don't trace back to delegates or legislators who ratified the US Constitution, they seem only to trace back to Lawyers trained in British law.
The disconnect happened back in the early 1800s.