I really enjoy making up sensational headlines, and then backing down in the article. In this case the Supreme Court is the current one (not Taney’s racist pre Civil War court) and the opinion was issued just yesterday in Arizona v. United States, a case deciding the authority of the states in regulating immigration.
Justice Scalia, “concurring in part and dissenting in part,” cited Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations on state sovereignty. I don’t know if Vattel would have approved Scalia’s conflation of “state of the United States” with “country,” but that’s beside the point.
What does this have to do with Obama? In practical terms, it will only excite the birthers who will go all hyperbolic about how important Vattel is. In practical terms, Justice Scalia is already on record saying presidential eligibility is jus soli (birth in the country) and so it doesn’t have any bearing on Obama’s eligibility.
Thanks to a commenter for the tip.
Comments are closed on this article due to the large number. If you would like to leave additional comments, place them here: