[patlin]

I have been studying Scalia’s book, “Making Your Case, The Art of Persuading Judges” and it would seem to me that Elliot missed the mark in making his case by relying so heavily on “articles” rather than on Supreme Court precedent such as the Rogers v. Bellei decision that upheld Congress’s authority to naturalize by descent, those born outside the jurisdiction of the United States. I do not see the SCOTUS even entertaining Elliot’s case.

[Cboldt]

-- it would seem to me that Elliot missed the mark in making his case by relying so heavily on "articles" rather than on Supreme Court precedent such as the Rogers v. Bellei --

I don't recall reading Elliott's complaint or brief (or Farrell's, he dropped his case and went on to represent Elliott), but the amicus briefs noted some of the precedents, in particular Wong Kim Ark (referred to in Bellei).

-- I do not see the SCOTUS even entertaining Elliot's case. --

I agree, but not because the case was argued poorly below.

The U.S. Supreme Court has "clearly, unambiguously made the distinction between natural-born and a naturalized citizen," Elliott argued.

"No they didn't," Pellegrini replied.

Pa judge hears Ted Cruz 'birther' challenge - The Morning Call -