Skip to comments.Is this true? President Obama was declared a Natural Born Citizen Nov 12,2009 by Indiana Court.
Posted on 05/08/2010 12:29:30 PM PDT by Retired Intelligence Officer
Is this really true. I have been reading and didn't know there was a ruling in a case called 'Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels'. It is a case I have never heard of on Obama's Eligibility and I sure didn't hear it or see it in the media or anywhere around the forum boards. What struck me is that in this case they ruled that Barak Obama is a Natural Born Citizen by stating this:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the US Supreme Court in 1898 in the case of US v] 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.Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009.
Why has this slipped under the radar and can Obama use this court case as proof that he is a Natural Born Citizen as his defense in Kerchner vs Obama and Lt. Col Terry Lakins court martial which proceedings start next week?
Here is the case:
Like about 97% of what is posted on this topic - it is complete BS.
Yeah, wasn’t it Indiana that declared pi is equal to 3?
This is bs. They will do anything to make sure the public doesn’t know the truth about Obama. I think it’s time to find out the truth and how people like Pelosi and others have helped Obama pull what looks to be a scam.
I don’t believe he is actually a legitimate President anymore.
It has slipped through the radar because the reasoning and conclusion are patently false although the after-birthers strumpet it.
If this was true; it would prove he was not legitmate when he ran and lied to Americans.
Yea but what bothers me is the ruling say that he is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of Citizenship of Parents!!!
That means they didn’t care if his dad was a Kenyan British Subject. That also means that a ‘Anchor Baby’ born to two illegal mexicans can grow up and meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1 to be President. This really is disturbing.
His daddy was not American.....therefore he was not ..is not a “natural Born” American.
Not exactly, although a bill redefining pi did almost pass. It was so confusingly worded, it's hard to say what exact relationship the author intended to substitute.
It’s BS and more BS on the part of Indiana State.
They and their courts do not have the authority to speak for the country as a whole. State court decisions are binding and precedent in that State only, unless overturned by their respective State Supreme Court (or whatever its name is) of the USSC if the state decision can be appealed to the USSC level.
Indiana ... Go Home. STFU!
The stench of Chicago is strong on this one.
So who’s gonna appeal??? Should go right to SCOTUS.
No, the ruling is quite real.
So if pi=3 and obama=citizen then pi=citizen /indiana logic
Agreed....Who is Retired Intelligence Officer?
It will be interesting in the next election when some states will be demanding proof of NBC before being put on the ballot and apparently the standards for meeting the NBC requirements will vary from state to state. Nevertheless, if you are not an NBC according to a particular state you will not get on the ballot.
Seems like a forumula for election chaos.
At best, that court decision would create a usable precedent in Indiana, affecting solely how the State of Indiana sees the issue. That’s because it’s a decision made by an Indiana State court—and not even that State’s Supreme Court.
The meaning of “natural born citizen” is an issue regarding the interpretation of the US Constitution involving the qualifications for a US Constitutional office, and so can only be decided by a US Federal court.
The only way this matter can be truly settled,legally,is via the SCOTUS.I don't know if Hussein is Constitutionally qualified to serve or not.I can,though,*absolutely* see a thoroughly amoral individual like him concealing evidence of actual ineligibility.However,I'd wager everything I own that any lower Federal court that might rule on the issue will rule in his favor and that the SCOTUS won't tough the case with a ten foot pole.So any dream that anyone might have of him being shoved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by the courts borders on delusional,IMO.
It just won't happen....whether it *should* happen or not.
Since this was a appeal ruling by the Indiana Court I have not seen where the matter has been taken up by the attorneys to take it to SCOTUS to overturn it.
Great Idea! That will make math easier for kids.
Agreed, however BO may not get on the ballot of some states in the next election. He will NOT be thrown out of office, but the NBC issue may prevent him from being re-elected.
The requirement that both parents be citizens is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet.
That also means that a Anchor Baby born to two illegal mexicans can grow up and meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1 to be President.
A child born in America of illegal immigrants has an American birth certificate and there is nothing on that birth certificate that lists the citizenship of his/her parents so, it appears that after reaching the age of 35 and after living in the United States for at least 14 years, indeed, they'd be eligible to run for President.
This is a little less clean-cut than pi. The problem is that there is some confusion on “natural born.”
Personally, I think it means a person “born here” in the time that the US has existed as a legal entity. The Founders exempted themselves, even though I am sure most if not all of them were born here, because they were starting a new country and a new legal entity.
But even under that definition I think Obama is illegal because I don’t believe he was born here. Otherwise, he’d do what Bush did: show us all his records.
That said, it’s true that natural born hasn’t been defined very clearly - while I don’t think there’s any doubt about pi.
Just ask him why he was declared last year and why didn’t he tell the public he was illegal when he was running for office?
I believe this case only confirmed the lower courts decision to dismiss. It doesn’t appear to actually make a claim declaring yea or nay to his natural born citizenship status. Unless I missed something in the legalspeak.
Nice try though, retired troll.
For starters the Indiana Appeals Court lied when they purposely said Chester Arthur became president when his father was a foreigner and was not challenged on it. The fact of the matter is that Chester Arthur successfully hid the origins of his birth while he was president, and to maintain the secrecy beyond his death he burned his personal documents in an attempt to not tarnish his legacy. The Indiana Court leaves these pertinent facts out to mislead people into thinking Chester Arthur set a precedence for future presidents.
Only fictional in your mind.
This is assuming he was born here. He still has avoided that issue. If you think he has presented his birth certificate, try applying for Social Security or replacement drivers license by handing them a URL with a scanned copy of your birth certificate and see how far you get.
“The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it.”
So this is not a decision affirmatively declaring Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” - this simply dismissed an improper complaint. Saying that the complaint does not meet the standards required for it to move forward in the judicial process is not tantamount to an admission of the negative of the premises in the Plaintiff's complaint.
Boy,I have trouble even seeing *that* happen.Yes,Hussein may well be moving out of Motel 1600 in January 2013 but if he does it won't be because he didn't get on the ballot in one or more states.
Great, then APPEAL it, subject to discovery.
I agree. Maybe Barak Obama said if Chester did it and got away with it because they could provide no proof he was natural born then I can do it too. He did his homework. Meet the Indiana Court of Appeals Judges:
the Indiana court's opinion uses as their "crown jewel" the NBC comment (seen below) right before they hold to dismiss the case in the next sentence.
Which says "...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were natural-born citizens of the United States)"
The comment comes from an INS case that is unsupportable by any Supreme Court precedence. It's a comment out of the blue, which I suspect, was spoken by the alien's lawyer to elicit emotional appeal to get the case reopened and that a liberal judge felt pity who placed it in his opinion.
There is a few of these type of comments that are littered in immigration and deportation cases that have no weight of court rulings or laws. They come out of the blue sky from the lawyers who represent the alien in defense and get sympathetic liberal judges who place their pap in their dicta. The false statement did not help Diaz-Salazar as he was still deported out of the United States.
Yeah, people keep telling me that...
Yet with each passing day, a man with a foreign parent occupies the Office of the Presidency.
If a particular state demands proof of NBC, and as part of that proof requires BO show his original long form BC, then he will either show it, or will not get on the ballot. AFAIK, a few states have either passed or have proposed a new law demanding proof of NBC before getting on the ballot.
“The judge, appointed by Obama in October.....
The matter of Natural Born citizenship has already been settled by the Supreme Court. CHILDREN WHOM PARENTS ARE U.S. CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN (noticed the S on parents, this means both). Since when does a lower appeals court override the U.S. Supreme. The reason obama is fighting to block any U.S. supreme court hearing on this matter is because if the court follows the Constitution he is history. I don’t think the Court wants to touch this matter because it would cause the removal of obama. No court (even the Supreme Court) has the authority to override Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is the duty of Congress to void the election of any politican that is ineligible to hold office. Congress knows that obama is ineligible and will not void his election. We the people of the United States do not have a President at this time. p.s. By law McCain is the legal President of the U.S.
The birth certificate is not the only method of proof. You’re wrong
Exactly. I would expect this to be appealed to SCOTUS because the states can’t define the Constitutional terms. And that’s actually why we need a SCOTUS ruling on this even if states pass laws requiring Constitutional eligibility to be verified by looking at the official legal birth documents, etc - because the US Constitution is not to be interpreted by any little SOS here or there. That is something the SCOTUS needs to rule on.
And without seeing a genuine birth certificate for Obama they legally can’t say that he was born in the US either. It would take a finding of facts for that to be done, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended and all the documentation has to be seen by a judicial or administrative person or body and measured against competing claims regarding the birth facts.
Now that the Kenyan BC’s have been submitted to a court of law, there are legally competing claims about Obama’s birth location. The Hawaii documents are not prima facie evidence. To prove his birthplace, Obama has the burden of proof to show that the Hawaii claim is true and the Kenyan claims are false. That would AT LEAST require a check on whether the Kenyan certificates are authentic.
Did the Indiana Court do any of that stuff? If they didn’t, then according to Hawaii law, they cannot make any legal conclusion about the claims made on the Hawaii BC.
Incorrect. Based upon the language, in WKA v United States which you guys in Indiana conveniently lied by omission, Justice Gray writing for the majority gave an example who was and who was not a natural born citizen.
As Binney is quoted in the WKA opinion:
"Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:
...such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]... "
Binney here is explaining the difference between natives born of aliens, naturalized citizens to natural born citizens. In other words, Wong Kim Ark is the native born of alien parents being compared to natural born citizens. So where was this in your silly opinion Indiana?? Indiana lied their butts off.
I have not seen where this ruling by the Indiana Court has been appealed. It should have been appealed by now.
If he was declared a natural born citizen in 2009, what was he before that date? How then was he allowed to run for POTUS in 2008?
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 parentsWOW! OK. Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5? LOL!
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States at the time of his birth. 14What does footnote 14 say?
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.LMAO! It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling. Haha. Sure it's immaterial. LOL!
So, this brilliant "defining" decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents was NOT a NBC...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?
LMAO. No...seriously, LMAO!
It's worthless. It's OBCVIOUSLY flawed. Period. Forget the fact that it is a state of Indiana decision and not from a federal court nor SCOTUS.
“...but the NBC issue may prevent him from being re-elected.”
After all the damage to the country has been done and there is nothing left to destroy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.