Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Wasn't Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf ^

Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer

As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 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, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama's eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn't the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; congress; constitution; education; fogbow; fogbowsherman; fogelsordo; fogrogers; fogtrumandog; illegalimmigration; mittromney; naturalborncitizen; obama; ricksantorum; rogers; sarahpalin; sordo; sourcetitlenoturl; supremecourt; truman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last

1 posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:55 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

You joined yesterday to post this?


2 posted on 01/10/2012 10:58:27 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

One has to join sometime.


3 posted on 01/10/2012 11:01:09 AM PST by Ceebass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ceebass

Smells funny to me ...


4 posted on 01/10/2012 11:05:41 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

I don’t know, sounds like a good question to me. I don’t know the answer either.

Cindie


5 posted on 01/10/2012 11:13:16 AM PST by gardencatz (I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gardencatz

Maybe because the plaintifs were representing themselves and there was nothing to actually appeal?


6 posted on 01/10/2012 11:17:37 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents

This decision says people meeting these criteria are NBC.

It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC. It says there have been doubts expressed. It does not say whether those doubts are correct.

7 posted on 01/10/2012 11:18:36 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Seems like a fair question.


8 posted on 01/10/2012 11:24:18 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Obama Exposer

This isn’t OE’s first post. OE explained on another thread why he/she is here, and the reason is a good one [ties into the screenname, in case you’re curious].

Welcome, Obama Exposer; it’s a privilege to make your acquaintance.


9 posted on 01/10/2012 11:31:25 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Ceebass; Obama Exposer
You joined yesterday to post this?

Well, it isn't all that bad a post for a newbie! It's also a damn good question. Repeat "Indiana Supreme Court" fast enough and it starts to smell like Kangaroo.

Why wasn't that appealed to the SCOTUS? Perfect oppo for the black-robed bumkissers to start earning their pay.

10 posted on 01/10/2012 11:34:02 AM PST by Kenny Bunk ((So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Excellent points, KB. I’ve been reading your posts on various threads lately, and I must say you’re on a tear. Your analysis is 99.9 percent of the time spot on [imho], and the way you express it makes it fun to read. A twofer!

Thanks.


11 posted on 01/10/2012 11:38:33 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Ankeny v. Daniels wasn't decided by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The case was brought by two plaintiffs who thought they didn't need an attorney; turns out they did.

12 posted on 01/10/2012 11:43:14 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; ...
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.

The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.

The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a "set-up?"

13 posted on 01/10/2012 11:44:27 AM PST by Kenny Bunk ((So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
......case was brought by two plaintiffs....

Thank you. Now we have to figure out exactly who they were. Getting smelly.

14 posted on 01/10/2012 11:46:56 AM PST by Kenny Bunk ((So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
A Marion Superior Court judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Indiana men seeking to invalidate Indiana’s election results based on President Barack Obama’s citizenship status.

At a hearing last month, attorneys representing Gov. Mitch Daniels asked Judge David Dreyer to dismiss the lawsuit. Filed in December, it is one of dozens across the country that have challenged Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his status as a “natural born citizen.” All have been unsuccessful.

From Here

15 posted on 01/10/2012 11:53:53 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

-{looking for precedent}-

Precedent, a method whereby an idiot can amend the Constitution, and the other idiots happily follow along.

Today some old men are going to decide if there any longer exists a modicum of decency in public. My best guess is no, they will give up.

San Francisco allows public nudity with slight restriction in resturants for sanitary reasons. However they have saved the goldfish from a life in a bowl.


16 posted on 01/10/2012 12:10:00 PM PST by itsahoot (Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
Thank you for short-cutting everyone's research. Whether or not this one has "legs," is a tough call. Offhand, I would say, "No."

But I have developed a bias against the sitting SCOTUS. I feel they have miserably failed us all.

17 posted on 01/10/2012 12:15:27 PM PST by Kenny Bunk ((So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.

This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle ... failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.

Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.


18 posted on 01/10/2012 12:42:04 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I was just going to add quickly that I don’t think the plaintiffs understood the importance of the Minor decision at the time they filed this case. They were relying too much on Vattel and on original intent from the authors of the 14th amendment. The Hoosier Hillbilly appeals court downplayed the former as if it were a random treatise on citizenship and the latter as imprecise references to 19th century Congressional debates. The whole decision is a very bad joke.


19 posted on 01/10/2012 12:46:33 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Thank you for the welcome Fantasywriter.


20 posted on 01/10/2012 1:26:10 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So what would your rebuttal be to Obama supporters who constantly bring Ankeny v Daniels up in arguments? They use it as their basis that Obama is eligible because the judges referred Ankeny V Daniels to Wong Kim Ark instead of Minor v Happersett.


21 posted on 01/10/2012 1:26:18 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

No.


22 posted on 01/10/2012 1:26:31 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Why would you think there was nothing to appeal? Please elaborate.


23 posted on 01/10/2012 1:26:49 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
So what would your rebuttal be to Obama supporters who constantly bring Ankeny v Daniels up in arguments?

Ummm, because State Courts cannot declare binding Federal precedent?

Cheers!

24 posted on 01/10/2012 1:30:14 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

The first thing to look at is that binding precence of a court ruling is not in and of itself a law. So unless a law or statute is made to define the term, all we will have is a court interpretation of the clause. There is nothing definitive.


25 posted on 01/10/2012 1:44:25 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

BS

Your Logic:
The case says X=3, but since it also does not say that X=/=7, it could mean that X=7.

That is not the way the worlds works.


26 posted on 01/10/2012 2:15:45 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn't actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.

The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn't follow this so-called "guidance." Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

They're claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn't there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It's there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It's not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay's letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It's saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can't be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

... the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.

A) This isn't true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there's nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they "contemplate" something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means "to consider at length." IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”

Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn't say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here's another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

That's all well and good if we're trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn't about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.

Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.

Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can't seem to get the facts straight:

As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ....

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren't arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”

Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.

Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don't seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the "ninenteenth century congressional debate" citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" .... how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court's interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn't have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on 01/10/2012 2:38:24 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.

Happy FReeping!


28 posted on 01/10/2012 3:11:54 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Thank you very much for your reply in specifics. I just wonder why these guys didn’t appeal it? Was it they couldn’t afford attorney’s?


29 posted on 01/10/2012 3:15:33 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

I’m pretty sure they appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court and were dismissed without a hearing. I’m not sure this case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Generally there needs to be a Federal law involved, or equal protection has to come into play. Since these guys were suing the Governor of Indiana under Indiana law, then it probably would have had to stay in the state court system.

Nothing in the appeals decision regarding natural-born citizenship carries any legal weight. It doesn’t outweigh Minor or Wong Kim Ark. The interpretation is clearly in error, but they never actually applied that interpretation to anyone. They simply said they didn’t have to accept the plaintiff’s arguments and there was a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I think these judges wanted to make a statement, but they ended up embarrassing themselves.


30 posted on 01/10/2012 3:22:50 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Triple

More like saying “These are a member of this set” instead of “This set consist solely of these”.

“Children born of two citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens” is a different statement than “Natural Born Citizens are children born of two citizen parents”.


31 posted on 01/10/2012 3:32:09 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I wonder if the judges use Justica.com for their case law these days. Apparently it had been scrubbed of all reference to Minor etal.


32 posted on 01/10/2012 3:36:33 PM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC.

Well, yes, actually it does. "These are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguihsed from aliens or foreigners." Had this been inserted one sentence later, the meaning would mean what you think it means. Instead, it said that some authorities go further in delcaring persons to be citizens, but it never characterizes nor suggests that such persons can be characterized as natural-born citizens. Instead it says, that such persons' citizenship would be in doubt. IOW, in this context, natural-born means citizenship that is without doubt.

33 posted on 01/10/2012 3:39:04 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

That might explain it, but it doesn’t explain how this court simply contradicted itself. It noted that Wong Kim Ark never declared the appellee to be a natural-born citizen. It noted that after the passage of the 14th amendment, that the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The definition that Minor used matches Vattel’s from the Law of Nations. It also doesn’t explain why it said the children of alien parents was contemplated but that the question of the children of aliens was somehow left open, when clearly Minor says that such children ONLY become citizens when the father naturalizes.


34 posted on 01/10/2012 3:43:01 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Your link goes to the appellate review.

Not sure if you have been exposed to the term - dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:

“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). 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”

That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop - basically an politician or government official.

The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:

“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
...
(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; “

See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775

So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

....unless someone wrote it for him......


35 posted on 01/10/2012 3:45:10 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

That part is covered when the court says “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” and “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” In this context, it becomes an exclusive definition, used to characterized only ONE set of citizenship criteria: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.


36 posted on 01/10/2012 3:58:31 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Article, then # 27 , # 35.

. . . . SP Alert.

37 posted on 01/10/2012 4:05:49 PM PST by LucyT ( NB. ~ Pakistan was NOT on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: edge919
That's your interpretation. And that's fine.

Where Birthers go ‘round the bend is when they get dogmatic that this is the only interpretation and anyone who disagrees is some kind of traitorous O-bot.

38 posted on 01/10/2012 4:06:30 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Can you read?? Minor lists two classes of persons who are considered to be citizens. Which class was characterized as natural-born citizens???


39 posted on 01/10/2012 4:12:03 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
You joined yesterday to post this?

Seems better than this BS.
40 posted on 01/10/2012 4:27:42 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop - basically an politician or government official.

Ankeny is all but worthless except for OBots to cite the case on the Internet. That sorrily written opinion concluded by citing the liberal, Carter appointed judge who wrote "nauseating dictum" from an illegal immigrant lawyer who said that the illegal immigrant's children were US natural born citizens (The deportation case made an unsupported statement).

41 posted on 01/10/2012 4:28:00 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
It looks like your 0bot buddy is not here to back you up.
42 posted on 01/10/2012 4:31:54 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Do some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents?

As to this class have there been doubts?

For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?


43 posted on 01/10/2012 4:33:11 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

I didn’t follow this at all so wasn’t even familiar with the case. Hence my lack of knowledge.

Cindie


44 posted on 01/10/2012 5:00:49 PM PST by gardencatz (I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]





Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

45 posted on 01/10/2012 5:28:27 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Jim Robinson
It's rather disappointing that some folks who argue for opposing views get banned while others who flat out make stuff up and get to stay around.
46 posted on 01/10/2012 5:41:07 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; All
It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC.

Standing ovation, and thank you very much for your succinctly stated view.

Here is what I have posted elsewhere in my attempts to help well-meaning but "tough-minded" FReepers realize that not only is Minor not binding law on the point, it does not define NBC.

The choice is:
A. Minor defines natural born citizenship as belonging to only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, or
B. Minor defines a particular class of citizens as natural born citizens but does not exclude the possibility of other classes.

Suppose we are talking about Irish Setters (born in the U.S. of citizen parents), you might say “these were four-legged animals” (“these were…natural-born citizens”).

Does that mean you believe no other four-legged creatures (citizens) can be classified as four-legged animals (natural-born citizens)? Certainly not.

Would it have been more helpful had the court said, if that is what was intended, that “these were the natural born citizens”? Certainly, it reasonably excludes other possibilities.

Would this have been even more helpful: “these and these alone were natural born citizens”? Most certainly, it expressly excludes all other possibilities.

47 posted on 01/10/2012 5:50:01 PM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
farewell, bladebryan...


48 posted on 01/10/2012 5:59:53 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; LucyT
farewell, bladebryan...


49 posted on 01/10/2012 6:00:42 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

sorry about the double farwell, better twice than not at all!


50 posted on 01/10/2012 6:02:25 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson