Replies

I have given it to you before. Here it is again:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

You don’t have to LIKE their reasoning, but the US Supreme Court refused to hear a similar case in Dec 2008. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld their ruling - and the cases they cite have been part of established law for a long time.

The courts are not going to overturn an election based on your whim.

Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).¹ We affirm. ²
For anyone interested the rule reads
Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) - Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; (Parties plaintiff and defendant--Capacity)
Read the footnotes. I like 2.
² The trial court also granted the Governor‟s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court‟s alternative grounds for dismissal.
Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) - Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,

That's the nuts and bolts of it. Kicked out for not following procedure and lack of jurisdiction, not merit.

And in case you missed it...
¹⁵ We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

I like this...
¹⁶ We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship.
That's got to hurt!
But they still think it's okay despite Chester A. Arthur's case because...
Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
I guess you just have to ask the right questions.