Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: patlin
-- 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 -
222 posted on 04/09/2016 10:37:58 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

do you have a link to the amicus briefs?


227 posted on 04/09/2016 11:55:26 AM PDT by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson