Posted on 05/08/2010 12:29:30 PM PDT by Retired Intelligence Officer
Yet with each passing day, a man with a foreign parent occupies the Office of the Presidency.
Do you have a problem with that? From your comments, it seems not.
Even Wiki asks for more INFO.
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (April 2010)
Now you are a retired INTEL OFFICER AS PER CLAIM. I RATE THIS F-6.
From my comments? Please direct me to any one of the 12,000+ comments I've posted on this forum where I've expressed satisfaction that Obama sits in the White House. Or did you just confuse my criticism of the many half-baked birther conspiracies and "unique" Constitutional interpretations as a wholehearted endorsement of President Obama?
Obama will not be involved in any way in the Lakin matter. But yes, the Ankeny Court did what anybody with a lick of sense would have predicted, and correctly interpreted Wong Kim Ark.
However, there are those who don’t want to see it, so they pretend Ankeny doesn’t exist, or make up other excuses to make it go away.
parsifal, who calls it like it is
Won Kim Ark was decided on narrow grounds, and the facts of the case are quite different from Obama’s. To argue this way is to argue that there is no meaningful distinction between a “natural” citizen and a naturalized on. Properly speaking Obama’s mother should have obtained a decree of naturalization in order to clarify his status. Properly speaking no child born in the United States has more than a claim to bve a citizenship and ought to act at age 18 to obtain documentation verifying that claim. But we have just let that slide.
Obama is not eligible to serve as President because his father was not a U.S. citizen. PERIOD! Oh, he was also probably born in Kenya.
That comment shows the real reason this aggravates certain posters here.
“...to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet.”
Of course. Which is why it's preposterous for that ridiculous Indiana state court to try and use it. Especially when the court did NOT find WKA to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Obama has no proper understanding of our legal system. In France, lawyers are are scholars, because the civil law is structured in a way that allows a lawyer to decide on the basis of the facts at hand what the law is, with the court being decisive in ambivalent cases. But here, things are quite different, and a legal education prepares a person to be an adversary rather than a judge. Obama seems to think that what he thinks is law is in fact law. Dangerous in an office with so much power.
But the government adheres to the rest of the Constitution, right?
Obama has no proper understanding of our legal system. In France, lawyers are are scholars, because the civil law is structured in a way that allows a lawyer to decide on the basis of the facts at hand what the law is, with the court being decisive in ambivalent cases. But here, things are quite different, and a legal education prepares a person to be an adversary rather than a judge. Obama seems to think that what he thinks is law is in fact law. Dangerous in an office with so much power.
If the plaintiffs had prevailed in this lawsuit, it is highly likely that other states would have invalidated Obama’s electoral college votes but the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Obama was eligible to receive those votes. They said: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. 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.
This suit was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to hear it.
Take a deep breath. There is nothing here to appeal. There is nothing here that constitutes any kind of ‘finding’.
All the court did was Affirm the trial court’s grant of the Governor’s Motion To Dismiss.
Boils down to the fact that neither the governor nor the court cared to revisit the case. The Courts have that right, and that is exactly the way they handled Plessy for so many years. Never mind that Plessy was obviously wrongly decided. Politics overrode logic, as it usually does.
So you would expect every birth certificate to include information that pertains in the 1 in 100 million chance that jr would, if eligible, become president? Certainly the Constitution doesn’t stipulate that one’s birth certificate must list the nationality of one’s parents.
Boils down to the fact that neither the governor nor the court cared to revisit the case. The Courts have that right, and that is exactly the way they handled Plessy for so many years. Never mind that Plessy was obviously wrongly decided. Politics overrode logic, as it usually does.
WHO is going to appeal?
Indeed, because it doesn't matter.
Otherwise, you really think it would have? Really?
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.