Replies

David, the case I cited is 1998, well after the 1986 act and the 1988 act.
You didn’t read it did you ?
Otherwise someone with your legal background would not continue to deny the fact that the law regarding unwed mothers precedes 1952.

You think the SC got there history wrong on the statute?

Alright, let's address this with respect to Sec. 1409.

You haven't cited any Supreme Court case that I can find anywhere in your posts. You have a number of references to a Cornell Law School article regarding the dissent by a couple of Liberal Justices in Miller v. Albright which affirms a DC Circuit Opinion that reaches a result contrary to the extensive irrelevant material set forth in the dissent and the Cornell Law School article.

And the facts in Miller aren't your facts. There, the case involved a citizen father who had failed to comply precisely with the statutory acknowledgment of paternity; not a citizen mother case at all. So all you have is some dictum in a dissent from a bunch of Liberal Justices arguing what they think is a women's right's issue.

You have cited an opinion by Henry K. Chang which purports to set forth a statement of the law to the same effect as the dissent in Miller but Henry also is a little lacking in a precise statement of the statute on which he relies and how the effective date of that statute operates in the context of Sec. 1401.

Henry's opinion looks a little more like real legal work than some law student's view of dictum in a Supreme Court dissent and his statement of the law makes sense although I still intend to look at the real statutory authorities.

Observe that if this statement of the law is reality, there wasn't any reason to insert the "born after December . . . " language in Sec. 1409. And there is also a body of this secondary authority that refers to Sec. 1401(g) as an overlay on Sec. 1409(c) which would put the burden of the five and ten year rule on the mother even in an illegitimate child case. I don't find any authority for that either--and although the proposition that the 1986-1988 statutes didn't affect a change in the statute is also dictum, it may well be correct.

I can't reach the clear underlying statutes with my legal search engine here and the nearest law library is some distance. However I am inclined to suspect that your and Henry's version of the statute may be correct.

But I have difficulty wasting a lot of time on the issue because there is a pretty clear body of factual data here and elsewhere demonstrating that Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. were in fact married. If the marriage really took place in Kenya as I speculate that it did, validity is a non issue and even if it took place elsewhere, the divorce lawyers say the marriage is still valid to legitimize the children as long as it has not been dissolved by legal process (a divorce proceeding in the U S).

The fact that the campaign reacts in a harsh anti-free speech effort to shut this issue down leads you to think that in fact, they are vulnerable on the "natural born" issue and since they would not be vulnerable if they had some credible record of a Hawaii birth, I assume the facts will ultimately demonstrate that he was born in Kenya, particularly in the context of the other news reports that support that conclusion.

The fact that the campaign reacts in a harsh anti-free speech effort to shut this issue down leads you to think that in fact, they are vulnerable...

Absolutely...I cannot accept that any candidate for POTUS is fit for that office in the absence of his/her full and timely disclosure with respect to issues concerning Constitutional requirements.

Issues that bear on a candidate's moral standing might be another matter. For instance, I don't feel I'm entitled to read love letters to a mistress written by a young married person who later in life receives his political party's nomination for the highest office in the land. But the failure to provide a complete, certified copy of a birth certificate will ultimately be seen by those who must disclose details of their lives as a prerequisite to employment etc. as arrogance or worse.

I don't believe it would be difficult to call into question the character of a candidate who equivocates on important matters in order to eventually ridicule those who want nothing more than routine proof of his Constitutional eligibility.