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?
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:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/appeals/judges.html
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.
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.