[STE=Q]

But then there’s that darn 14th Amendment (with two little words: “All Persons,”

---

But then there’s this:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “father of the Fourteenth Amendment” — in the House on March 9, 1866:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE to any FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

(emphases mine)

Did not Obama’s putative FATHER owe ALLEGIANCE to a FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY at his(Obama’s)birth?

STE=Q

[jamese777]

But then there’s this:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “father of the Fourteenth Amendment” — in the House on March 9, 1866:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE to any FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

(emphases mine)

Did not Obama’s putative FATHER owe ALLEGIANCE to a FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY at his(Obama’s)birth?

STE=Q

---

The Supreme Court of the United States ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898): “United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.’”

---

“Based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution and the guidance provided by 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.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana. Mitch Daniels. November 12, 2009
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1501011.html

No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court of the United States has now had 13 opportunities to accept an appeal of an Obama eligibility lawsuit ruled on by a lower court. The Supreme Court has denied hearings to all 13 appeals.