You don't seem to understand the irrelevancy in citing that case Diaz-Case by Indiana. It's a totally unsupported statement that the Indiana court chose to place in their opinion from a circuit court. And you spamming the thread with this is not going hand credibility to your viewpoint.
These judges who dismissed the Indiana case hardly have a background in deciding constitutional issues. Judge Brown who addressed family issues and substance abuse. Judge May background is in insurance defense and personal injury litigation. Judge Crone founded a program that minority students law related field and founded a South Bend commission in the status of African-American male coalition against drugs.
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
LoL! Hey Parsy, where did you cut and paste this one from?
I see you didn't find anywhere in the Indiana opinion that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.
Psssst Parsy, because it's not there.
First, the link you gave:
http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156
Next, the standard of review language from Diaz:
A denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is, on the other hand, a final order of deportation and thus reviewable by this court. Giova v. Rosenberg, 379 U.S. 18, 85 S.Ct. 156, 13 L.Ed.2d 90 (1964). We will not overturn a decision of the BIA denying such a motion, however, absent an abuse of discretion. Kashani v. INS, 547 F.2d 376 (7th Cir.1977); Tupacyupanqui-Marin v. INS, 447 F.2d 603 (7th Cir.1971).
The way this stuff works, the decision of the INS (agency) can be appealed. The INS has their own little court system—an Administrative Law thing with an Administrative Law Judge—who isn’t a real Federal judge. I think they are Article III judges, but I have to look up again to make sure that’s the right article.
Now if you lose in the “INS Court” you can appeal, but the reasons for appeal have a certain burden. The Federal Court don’t want to spend all its time cleaning up INS court messes. So on this issue, the Mexican had to prove the INS Court abused its discretion. That is the standard of review. Some issues are what is call “de novo” which means in non-legal terms, a “do-over”, they start fresh. These are usually on legal issues, not factual issues. Factual issues usually go back down to the lower court for re-hearing of some sort or cleaning up.
So, yeah, its there but unless you know what that stuff is, it just sounds like gobbledegook.
Now as to whether Indiana called Obama an NBC, one more time (this is fun because I have this on my word processor)
The Birthers: “Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’ “(page 12)
The Very Intelligent and Good Indiana Court:
“Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”
The only person at issue who was born within the borders of the United States was Obama.
parsy