[philman_36]

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Here, let me help you out...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Didn't even Ankeny state that Ark wasn't a NBC?

[Harlan1196]

Yet all those judged interpret WKA and Arkeny as saying that NBC = born in America. Imagine that.

Perhaps there is more to the ruling then that single statement?

As the appeals go further, do you think the courts will agree with you? Are you excited that the end is in sight?

[philman_36]

And just to show how even the court in Ankeny can get things wrong I give you this... 9 The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

How could the court make such an error?