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?
don’t get baited
I didn’t get baited but I did eviscerate the silly opinion in the preceding posts on this thread.
They can't 'rule' on any question not at the bar.
the question for the court was did the lower Court err in granting the motion to dismiss submitted by the Governor.
The appeals court said 'no'.
Anything not pertaining to the question is immaterial.
From footnote 14-
We note the fact in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. [snip] the dichotomy between who is natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
------
The court is correct. The citizenship question is immaterial and the types of citizenship are irrelevant.
The initial court found as they did because the plaintiff went to court without stating what kind of 'relief' he was seeking.
You can't go to court and say "you need to stop this because it's wrong".
You're seeking recourse, and have to prove harm, and tell the court what you want to relieve the wrongdoing.
-----
I'm no lawyer [yes, that was probably flame bait ;-)] but the way I see it-
1) Until the votes were actually given, there was no wrongdoing.
2) The only ones with 'standing' as far as the election was concerned were the 'parties to the compact'...or the States along with their electors.
The press hated President Nixon and all had their knives out for him. They love and adore Mr. Obama, so why would they attack him? They’re what V.I. Lenin called “useful idiots” and don’t realize they’ll be some of the first stood up against the wall when the hammer comes down.
well, fascinating a noob using a BS name introduces this dumbass question. It is a state court, it has absolutely NO precedence. They keep throwing it out as if it were SCOTUS. Not hardly.
WHO is going to appeal?
They can’t ‘rule’ on any question not at the bar.
the question for the court was did the lower Court err in granting the motion to dismiss submitted by the Governor.
The appeals court said ‘no’.
Anything not pertaining to the question is immaterial.
From footnote 14-
We note the fact in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. [snip] the dichotomy between who is natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
The court is correct. The citizenship question is immaterial and the types of citizenship are irrelevant.
The initial court found as they did because the plaintiff went to court without stating what kind of ‘relief’ he was seeking.
You can’t go to court and say “you need to stop this because it’s wrong”.
You’re seeking recourse, and have to prove harm, and tell the court what you want to relieve the wrongdoing.
I’m no lawyer [yes, that was probably flame bait ;-)] but the way I see it-
1) Until the votes were actually given, there was no wrongdoing.
2) The only ones with ‘standing’ as far as the election was concerned were the ‘parties to the compact’...or the States along with their electors.
And they're correct.
O's mother was too young for her citizenship to have any effect on her first born, and according to The Law of Nations
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
O's father was a VISITOR on a student visa, with no intention of making America his home, so O's citizenship follows his fathers.
-----
Thanks for the reminder about McCain, BTW. I'd forgotten being on the ballot would give him standing.
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?
Either they think the cause has no merit, OR they think it is so hot that it would create a constitutional crisis.
And they’re correct.
O’s mother was too young for her citizenship to have any effect on her first born, and according to The Law of Nations
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
O’s father was a VISITOR on a student visa, with no intention of making America his home, so O’s citizenship follows his fathers.
I wouldn’t think so.
Don't you think that if a parents' citizenship was required to bestow NBC upon a child, there'd be a documentation of this on a child's birth certificate? Wouldn't there be something like "Child is (check) ___ Natural Born or ___ Native Born" on a birth certificate? Wouldn't parents have to provide documentation of where they were born and/or their citizenship when providing information to the registrar? (Instead of just volunteering this information without documentation.) As it is, any illegal alien parent can just mumble "Arizona" when asked where they were born and nobody would know the difference.
There isn't any of the above because none of it is necessary. Any child born in the United States, including Barack Obama, is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Have you heard of this case ???
Yes, and it is a misdirection ploy with no relevance until the SCOTUS makes a ruling one way or the other on NBC.
An easier to read link to the Indiana opinion is here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Obviously, folks who believe Obama is disqualified by his father don’t like it. It is worth noting, however, that no state attorney or legislature has challenged it, nor any federal court ruled different on any case presented. No member of Congress dissented, and neither McCain nor Palin have ever said that Obama’s father disqualifies him from office.
The WKA decision can be read here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
The dissent on that it interesting, and can be read by clicking the link for the dissent at the top of the web page.
I’ve spent much of the day with a pick and shovel digging holes for trees and fences, and haven’t the patience to debate birthers, most of whom need to register as a religion so they can post on the religion caucus pages.
You will find to question is to be branded a heretic.
Go change your bib, scum, your anti-American persona is sliming through.
obumpa
- - - - - - -
"Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship.
Eastman states plainly that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of allowing another country to wage demographic warfare against the U.S. and reshaping its culture by means of exploiting birthright citizenship.
-snip-
Eastman describes the path to our present notion of birthright citizenship a “bizarre story,” one that veers from the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and the first court cases and legal treatise that emerged in the 1880s—an interpretation that hued to the bright line of “owing allegiance to” the country—through the 1898 Supreme Court decision in the case of Wong Kim Ark and into the last half of the 20th Century, when our present day interpretation of birthright citizenship really took hold. While the Wong Kim Ark case, which involved a man born in America to permanent, lawful Chinese residents, is often cited as the baseline legal decision that offers a clear interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Eastman said the high court’s ruling does no such thing.
-snip-
According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.
“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws.
-snip-
Yale professor Peter H. Schuck, who teaches immigration law and is one of the nation’s preeminent scholars on the issue of birthright citizenship, lays out the question that the president, Congress and the courts have dodged decisively answering: “If mutual consent is the irreducible condition of membership in the American polity, questions arise about a practice that extends birthright citizenship to the native born children of such illegal aliens,” Schuck writes in Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity. “The parents of such children are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law and to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership. And if the society has refused to consent to their membership, it can hardly be said to have consented to that of their children who happen to be born while their parents are here in violation of American law.”
Cal State San Bernardino’s Erler notes that a new constitutional amendment is not necessary to restore the operational policy of immigration law to the original intent envisioned by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
In 1923, there was a universal offer of citizenship to all Native American tribes, an act that again affirmed the notion of reciprocal consent. “There was an offer on the part of the U.S. and an acceptance on the part of the individual,” Erler said. “Thus, Congress used its legislative powers under the 14th Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.” "
-end snip-
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.