[Mr Rogers]

“Whereas he ignores the plaintiff’s argument and proof that obozo was born to a foreign father, therefore has dual citizenship/loyalty, not a nbc and not qualified to be on the ballot!”

He did not ignore that argument, but he rejected it - based on the WKA decision & Ankeny. Had he done otherwise, he would have been promptly overturned as an incompetent judge for ignoring the law.

[Cboldt]

I understand that birthers reject that idea. But at a bare minimum, all ought to be able to agree that honest people can look at the evidence and disagree with the idea that two citizen parents are required.

posted on 02/19/2012 5:15:07 AM PST by Mr Rogers

-- He did not ignore that argument, but he rejected it - based on the WKA decision & Ankeny. Had he done otherwise, he would have been promptly overturned as an incompetent judge for ignoring the law. --

Which is it? There is room for honest disagreement, or disagreeing with the position you advocate represents incompetence and ignorance?

[chrisnj]

Fine, the judge rejects the plaintiff’s argument by using an irrelevant case from another state....
How do you explain this -
The judge rules in favor of obozo for not showing up (Utter contempt of the court), and presenting no argument - the judge was acting as obozo’s attorney, using the plaintiff’s ‘insufficient’ doc (the bogus bc) to say obozo was born in Hawaii, and, takes it on himself to decide just because obozo is deemed born in Hawaii, he is a nbc!

If you refuse to see the facts, there is no reasoning with you.

I can understand if you say it is useless becasue no one wants to be the one to rule against obozo no matter how much merits our cases have, but to conclude that the lawsuits have no valid argument, one must be blind!

[philman_36]

...based on the WKA decision & Ankeny.

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

[philman_36]

...based on the WKA decision & Ankeny.

And just to show how even the court in Ankeny can get things wrong I give you this...
@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

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?

[DiogenesLamp]

He did not ignore that argument, but he rejected it - based on the WKA decision & Ankeny. Had he done otherwise, he would have been promptly overturned as an incompetent judge for ignoring the law.

The Wong Kim Ark decision did not deal with the status of "natural born citizen" so therefore any attempt to cite it regarding "natural born citizen" is a misapplication of Precedent. As the Ankeny decisions is also based on this false conflation of two distinctly different terms, it is utter crap of no legal value.