Why Wasn't Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf ^

[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.

[edge919]

But Happersett says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." So aren't they equating native born and natural born?

That is exactly right. Justice Waite in MvH, following the language of Vattel from the Law of Nations," equates natives and natural-born citizens ... and in BOTH circumstances, this refers ONLY to persons who are born inthe country to citizen parents. Vattel says the place of birth is not as important as the citizenship of the father.

After the Wong Kim Ark decision, the term "native-born" has been genercized to refer to persons who are domestically born within a country's jurisdiction, but the decision itself made a clear distinction that preserves the meaning of the term natural-born citizen as meaning those persons born in the country to citizen parents. And clearly the court in WKA says the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Native-born does NOT appear in the Constitution and is NOT the requirement for presidential eligibility. That term is only natural-born citizen. That definition has not changed: All persons born in the country to parents who were its citizesn.

[bluecat6]

Even in todays online dictionary there are multiple definitions of ‘native’ that may address your question.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native

“1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one’s native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.”

What seems to be the ‘default’ definition that leads to your question is item 1 above. It is simply ‘place of birth’.

But look at number 3 - “belonging by birth to a PEOPLE REGARDED AS INDIGENOUS...”. That definition is the one that is more synonymous to ‘natural born’ that #1.

So ‘native’ does not just mean ‘place’.

[An.American.Expatriate]

The only relevant passage is this:

Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.

IOW, the Plaintiffs did not present a valid argument for which relief could be granted. Everything else is just fluff. Telling me repeatedly to read post 27 (which I did a long time ago, thanks ....) does not change the facts.

[edge919]

Telling me repeatedly to read post 27 (which I did a long time ago, thanks ....) does not change the facts.

If you read post 27 "a long time," ago then why did you say you read the PDF instead in post 67??? The passage you cited here doesn't show any "facts." It's a legal dodge. The court claims the Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, yet they cited Vattel who is quoted by the Supreme Court in one of the decisions cited by the Indiana judges. Why is that okay for the Supreme Court but not for Ankeny to do??

Second, I've shown where these Indiana judges misrepresented the plaintiffs' argument in a direct contradiction. IOW, this court has a severe problem: either they lied about what the plaintiff's argument was or they were too stupid to realize that they contradicted themselves and misrepresented what the plaintiffs were arguing. What this leaves us with is a court that severely undermines its own credibility and legal reputation. This case does NOT help Obama other than to provide poorly supported subterfuge.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I pointed you to the exact reason given for dismissal - the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Govenor was legally required to verify the candidate’s eligiblility.

The court then got long winded trying to demolish the 9 claims made. Whether they did a good job in that is immaterial.

Your post 27 does not address the reason for the dismissal and is also immaterial in so far as it pertains to this decision.

The Plaintiffs were idiots. They should have had decent counsel. They were unprepared at the trial level and lost. The had very little ground to stand upon at appeal and lost. They ran out of time / money / desire to appeal further, or were denied outright.

Can you show that the Govenor IS required to verify a candidate’s eligibility? That is the ONLY point that can be contested in the ruling.

[Sherman Logan]

Amazing. Your response to a reasoned argument is to try to get the reasoner banned.

Would you care to point out where exactly I have violated any FR posting guidelines, other than perhaps in having a different opinion from you? But then I must have missed the section about always agreeing with Godebert as a prerequisite of FR membership.

[Sherman Logan]

I am no fan of Obama and believes he lies constantly. But this in and of itself does not differentiate him from pretty much any politician. This is largely because most Americans will not vote for politicians who tell them the truth. Thus politicians are by definition liars.

I voted against Obama and will vote against him again. But I believe he is a native-born citizen under the Constitution as it presently stands. He is a bad President, not an ineligible one.

You know, if you expel from your ranks all who oppose Obama but don’t buy into the more hysterical birther claims you will wind up with a very small coalition.

[Fantasywriter]

“I am no fan of Obama and believes he lies constantly. But this in and of itself does not differentiate him from pretty much any politician. This is largely because most Americans will not vote for politicians who tell them the truth. Thus politicians are by definition liars.”

So you’re saying Obama is no more dishonest than the average politician. Really? Is he roughly as honest/dishonest as Newt? As Santorum? As Perry?

Sounds like moral equivalence to me. ‘Sure Obama lies, but so do they all, and he is no worse’.

Really?? What an interesting position.

[DTxAg]

Many thanks to the three of you. I understand your positions more clearly. I had originally interpreted Happersett this way:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as [natural born] citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

I put "natural born" in brackets as that was what I thought they had meant, so I interpreted Happersett as defining one way to be a NBC but not the only way. Others previously pointed out the error.

[Fantasywriter]

In case there’s any ambiguity, that was a polite but definite question. I.e.: according to your reply, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference, integrity-wise, between Obama, Newt, Santorum and Perry. They are all equally big liars. That is what you said. Do you stand by it?

Or, by some strange coincidence, do the characteristics you ascribed to politicians as a class just happen not to apply to the current three GOP frontrunners? What astronomically unlikely odds that would be, according to your own statements.

[Obama Exposer]

Thanks for all the posts everyone. They have been most helpful.

[Triple]

i think the key passage in MvH is hard to read correctly for many people. It shifts gears several times, and it is more easily understood if the whole case is read, instead of just reading that key passage.

Regards,

[edge919]

I pointed you to the exact reason given for dismissal - the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Govenor was legally required to verify the candidate’s eligiblility.

Sorry, but you didn't bring anything new to the table. I already talked about this point in post #18, where I said:

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.

The court then got long winded trying to demolish the 9 claims made. Whether they did a good job in that is immaterial.

I thought you said you read the PDF?? The court didn't try to demolish the nine claims. This is what they said:

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

They "revise and restate" the nine issues into two: Can the governor be held responsible and the issue of natural-born citizenhip. The problem, as I pointed out is that in "restating" the issues, they actually mischaracterized the issues and lied about the plaintiff's arguments.

The Plaintiffs were idiots. They should have had decent counsel. They were unprepared at the trial level and lost. The had very little ground to stand upon at appeal and lost. They ran out of time / money / desire to appeal further, or were denied outright.

Right. That's enough insults and excuses to make it easy to avoid admitting the myriad of flaws in the appeals court decision that I pointed out in detail in post #27. I would advise reading that post.

Can you show that the Govenor IS required to verify a candidate’s eligibility?

This isn't my claim. The state of Indiana does, by law, require presidential candidates to be Constitutionally eligible:

IC 3-8-1-6
President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

... and by law, the Governor is required to provide certificates of ascertainment for presidential elections.

IC 3-10-4-7
Assembly of presidential electors
(c) As provided by 3 U.S.C. 6, the governor shall deliver to the electors present six (6) duplicate originals of the certificate of ascertainment of appointment of the electors mailed to the Archivist of the United States.

It's not clear under the law how the governor can sign or deliver a certificate of ascertainment if or when neither of the candidates are eligible. Maybe the law omits a procedural necessity here, but it's not too hard to understand why the governor was named in the lawsuit since he has responsiblity for part of the process. The Indiana Appeals Court doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this. They say the plaintiffs didn't cite an authority, but at the same time they also willfully misconstrued the plaintiffs' argument about presidential eligiblity, so it's not clear whether the court's claim about the governor's legal responsibility is supported or not. I don't know whether the plaintiffs cited the law that I've cited or not. The court simply punted the claim by denying whether the argument was supported by a reference to authority. It doesn't change the fact their song and dance about natural-born citizenship is in error.

[rxsid]

FY(additional)I:

In the times that surround the Constitution, Natural (& Naturel in Frech), Native and Indigenous (or Indigenes in French) were all alike in meaning or significance. Some early examples include:

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ

 

The new royal and universal English dictionary ...: To which is prefixed, a grammar of the English language, Volume 2
Author: J. Johnson
Publisher: Millard, 1763
Original from Columbia University
Digitized: Sep 16, 2009

Found: http://books.google.com/books?id=OmtHAAAAYAAJ

 

The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ

 

Regarding the 14th Amendment, and the present day bastardization of it...

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

[1]

 

Additional information regarding the framers of the 14th Amendment and their intent:

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.

Continued at length...

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.

Continued...

Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama was born owing allegiance to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, regardless if born in HI (or some other state)...inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright. He even admitted as much in plain view on his campaign website.

Being born owing allegience to two different countries was unheard of in 1787.

Today, while the U.S. government recocognizes such a possibility, it does not mean such recognition changes the meaning or intent of the term "natural born Citizen."

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

And this...

US State Department Services Dual Nationality

... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. ...

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

The issue, here, really boils down to one of divided allegiance and ultimately national security. Our Commander in Chief must not be born with foreign allegiance owed, nor the possibility to aquire by birthright, citizenship(s) in other countries.

Obama was born a British Subject, possibly a U.S. "citizen", was granted Kenyan citizenship around age 2 when that country declared their independence from G.B. (apparently loosing that Kenyan citizenship when he allegedly didn't reaffirm it when he was a young adult) and possibly even had Indonesian citizenship by way of his Indonesian step dad, Soetoro.

He never would have fit the "natural born Citizen" definition known to the founders and framers of the nations, the framers of the 14th Amendment, or various SCOTUS justices including Chief Justices Jay, Marshall and Waite, etc.

[rxsid]

framers of the nations —> framers of the nation

[An.American.Expatriate]

Sorry, but you didn't bring anything new to the table.

Oh, gee, so sorry that I agreed with your original thought in post 18. I guess since you had it "first" I can't use it. I'll just move along then to another thread.

[edge919]

Do you understand how a debate works?? You acted like you were arguing against me on this point, but you basically repeated something I already said. In fact, I suspect you probably got the idea from reading my post to begin with.

[frog in a pot]

He never would have fit the "natural born Citizen" definition known to the founders and framers of the nations, the framers of the 14th Amendment, or various SCOTUS justices including Chief Justices Jay, Marshall and Waite, etc.

That, in my opinion is the bottom line. A proper analysis of NBC as that term appears in the Constitution would necessarily include a determination of the meaning the drafters and ratifiers likely intended when they used the term.

The historical record and contemporaneous writings of those individuals strongly suggests they intended that the commander-in-chief of our nation's military have an allegiance to the new country that came from a American bloodline.

George Washington who served as the commander during the very precarious times of our American Revolution emphasized this point on several occasions in connection with the government sending him general officers, and he is no doubt one who insisted on its application.

If this is not true, there was no need to go to the additional effort of specifying anything beyond "citizen" as was done for senators and representatives, as a qualification for the CinC. Nor did the Congress need to go to the later effort to correct an oversight by an amendment extending the NBC requirement to, but only to, the VP as well.

Most on this thread agree on the meaning of NBC, the dispute rages over whether Minor, in its own words, conclusively defines NBC and whether, if it does, it sets out a binding holding.

As Sherman points out above, the USSC may not rule the way conservative’s desire. Minor may be helpful in any litigation on the point, but it also presents a risk. And that risk is found in the two possible interpretations of its language as pointed out upthread. Even further, a court as sharply politically divided as the current court (4-4-?)could also seize on the statement: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.

Imagine the result a liberal court could reach with that statement. We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, but if the court decides two citizen parents are not required to be NBC and embraces the authority expressed in this later sentence, then it is an open field. For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.

[NJ_Tom]

The language of the decision states that there are doubts as to whether others are Citizens, not whether they are Natural Born Citizens. The case concerned a question of voting rights, which would first require a determination of citizenship; as it was certain that the Mrs. Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, it was unnecessary to further inquire as to whether she was an ordinary Citizen under any rule of jus soli.

[bushpilot1]