Here is another source to the same case...it sure looks like a SC case opinion to me
Yes sir. That is a copy of the Supreme Court opinion in the case--I read it on a law search engine Case Law. What you were citing was a an article published by a Cornell Law School student which quoted the dissent in that case (the justices who didn't agree with the result).
Reason that case is not authority here is because the facts are wrong and it deals with a different statute. In Miller, the case is about a father attempting to qualify his kid under the father-citizen born out of wedlock statute by admitting paternity. Argument was that having different rules for father and mother violated fifth amendment equal protection right. Our case doesn't have anything to do with any of that.
The stuff in the dissent is what lawyers call "dictum"--it doesn't have anything to do with the result and thus it isn't authority for anything. It is interesting history but doesn't get you specific rules about how you get a result on your facts.
I have a bunch of similar stuff that says the out of wedlock provision of Sec. 1409 is subject to an overlay of Sec. 1401(g) to the end that the mother of the out of country out of wedlock still has to prove compliance with the 10 years prior to of which 5 years are after 14 or 16, whichever applies. But, I can't find that in the statute either so I am not going to post it as the basis for an opinion. I would like to find the statutory basis for an opinion but the law search engine I have here won't let me get behind the statute.
I tend to think your view is probably going to prove out correct but I can't get there on the material I have available.
And the more I read about the marriage and divorce the more comfortable I am with the conclusion that Obama never gets to the "born out of wedlock" condition anyway. Common law marriages work for wedlock for this purpose--never married at all; just told people they were.
Here, you got them all pleading in a legal divorce case they paid significant money for that they were married.
I still think it's important to find out what the answer is but I haven't got the resources to do that right now and won't for a week or so.
But I will also concede that your hammering me on the issue has forced me to rethink Sec. 1409 which is good because my actual legal opinion on the main issues is in fact in the hands of someone who has the swat to do something about it--since I got to your original Sec. 1409 question after I wrote the main opinion, it wasn't in the opinion--I just sent him an email with my original response to you which now looks a little suspect. So after jousting with you the last day or so, I had the opportunity to write him another email and tell him Sec. 1409 might be a little different.
But you don't need to insult me to get me to pay attention. I have figured out that you are doing real work; and I too am an accountant by primary training and have had my most important business relationships with the accounting community so I am paying attention even though I may not look like it.