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

To: pawdoggie
it’s about the citizenship status of the parents

ONLY if BHO Sr. and SAD were legally married.

In the common law, and all statutes in effect in 1961, bastards did not HAVE fathers.

The concept of legal fathers for bastards was invented by the US Supreme Court in 1973 in Gomez v. Perez (the same Court in the same term that decided Roe v. Wade).

BHO Sr. could not have transmitted British nationality to any children of SAD, since they were not legally married.

65 posted on 04/11/2011 4:43:24 AM PDT by Jim Noble (The Constitution is overthrown. The Revolution is betrayed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Noble; RSmithOpt
[JN] In the common law, and all statutes in effect in 1961, bastards did not HAVE fathers.

Which speaks directly to my last, which see.

Furthermore: If it was the Supreme Court that invented the idea of fatherhood for the propagators of bastards in a holding of the Court, then that is case law not constitutional law and is subject to revision and review by any subsequent session of the Court, or any act of the Congress.

It also would arguably not apply to The Won because he was born in 1961.

It also would not modify the black-letter law spelled out in Article II.

68 posted on 04/11/2011 9:39:08 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | 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