Skip to comments.ANKENY et al v. GOV. of INDIANA (Ind. App. Ct.)
Posted on 11/12/2009 3:55:21 PM PST by Sibre Fan
Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.gov ...
Anyone can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattel’s view is U.S. law will be awarded the Barack H. Obama Mental Acuity Award.
Darn, that should have been:
Anyone **who**can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattels view is U.S. law will be awarded the Barack H. Obama Mental Acuity Award.
Hey, Sabe, and congrats on the hitch.
“Anyone **who**can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattels view is U.S. law...”
Why isn’t it US Law?
Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens."Kenya, the 51st state...
“... and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark...”
Which section of the US Constitution is Wong Kim Ark in?
Naturally, the Founding Fathers put in some pretty long days crafting our various national documents, and ordered a lot of Chinese food delivered to the Continental Congress.
Is this really a Court, I mean a non Satire Comedy Court writing this?
Was Sammy Davis Jr a Judge in Indiana?
Ping to big news. An NBC interpretation handed down.
(My two week hiatus from birther threads is officially over as of today.)
Whatever the number is, he’s visited all of ‘em, even been a natural born citizen of several.
The U.S. Constitution is the bedrock foundation of all law. The Supreme Court’s decisions are also part of U.S. law. _Wong_ was a case tried before the U.S. Supreme Court; therefore, the Court’s interpretation — in the decision of _Wong_ — of constitutional provisions *is* the law of the land just as much as the Constitution is the law of the land.
The 14th Amendment.
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words citizen of the United States and natural-born citizen of the United States must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that [t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
See how they quoted Wong Kim Ark, “...the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution”, and promptly went on to ignore said principles, ie Vattell, ie
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned Englands natural allegiance doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
eg In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattels Law of Nations:
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/
The Indiana Court has bent itself, and added itself to the role of shame.
They didn't ignore it. They don't agree that Vattel is such a principle:
"The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [Wong Kim Ark] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise [de Vattel] and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120"