Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “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.” Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, wrong again....
The formal ruling was this:
AFFIRMED
There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.
The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.
Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....
“blah, blah, blah, blah....
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”
He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.
But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.
A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....
“Hoooooosier daddy?!”
It applies here...
Sorry, wrong again....
The formal ruling was this:
AFFIRMED
There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.
The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.
Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....
“blah, blah, blah, blah....
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”
He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.
But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.
A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....
“Hoooooosier daddy?!”
It applies here...
Bluecat6 is also correct to point out that the vast majority of judges and justices do provide a legal rationale for their decisions rather than simply issuing a one word verdict such as “affirmed” or “dismissed.”