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.

[Fantasywriter]

Lol. You have a way w words.

I can understand why Blade spent his time here. I visited Fogbow recently, and the place is dead. Yes, they still halfheartedly mock some of our most well informed and dedicated researchers, but there’s not much fire there. It’s just distilled vileness, and even that is sparse.

Blade’s site reminds me of a play I once saw called ‘The Last Meeting of the Knights of the White Magnolia’. It was a comedy about a group of aging white men who had a society that excluded blacks. Problem was, they couldn’t attract any newer, younger members, and their outfit was dying of attrition.

Fogbow’s passion is dying, and my guess is it’s because Obama is such a mega-Class A Malignant Narcissist. When your reason for being is to defend a cult of personality, the person being defended needs to possess a basic grasp of what it takes to inspire and reward followers. Obama is so radically self-centered, self-referential, he can’t even do that.

So Blade drifts over to FR to get a little action on his favorite/sole issue—anti-birtherism. He was a moonbat Obot trying to sufficiently pass on a conservative site for no other reason that to shill for Obama. He should have been honest about who he was from the get go...but then he’s a liberal, and honesty is antithetical to the very core of his being.

[DTxAg]

You need to dig deeper. The clincher is that this obot (like all obot and Clinton trolls) is a typical South basher on the CW threads. That alone is acceptable to the management, though if you look at the posting history of obot trolls on Freerepublic, that is one trait they almost invariably have in common.

Wow, so if a person disagrees with your reading of a SCOTUS case and what, thinks the South seceded to keep slavery instead of some deeper "states rights", then they're an Obot troll?

Cite specifically what I’ve posted that warrants such a preachy, sanctimonious reply. Specifically, word for word.

My reply was neither preachy nor sanctimonious. You took to questioning a 5-year Freeper with a length posting history based on another's accusation, when you could have simply looked at Sherman Logan's posting history on this thread and elsewhere. So far, the only evidence given to support the accusation of being an Obot troll is that there is a disagreement about Happersett and "South bashing." And your response to that was nonsensical, asking whether SL believes Obama has a specific psychiatric condition, as if that proves anything. How's reality treating you recently? I told you before it was the cure.

[PA-RIVER]

Where is Blade?

Fund raising in Palestine again?

[Godebert]

Me thinks thou protest too much.

[DTxAg]

Me thinks thou protest too much.

Ah, the favorite reply of someone who has made an allegation they can't back up. Now, if I accuse you of being a felon, you can't respond or you'll be protesting too much, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Here is a typical example of this:

Sherman Logan argues that natural born is identical to native born.

Strangely enough, there are a LOT of conservatives that also believe this. The ENTIRE STAFF at Ace of Spades seems to believe this. I do not count someone as an enemy agent just because they believe that "native born" = "natural born", but it is certainly indicative.

Edge has done a service in pointing out that the Minor court explicitly said "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

As the Supreme Court is DISCUSSING the 14th amendment, this is an absolute Admission that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT SAY WHO SHALL BE NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS!

The 14th amendment DOES SAY who shall be "native born" citizens. A clearer statement that Native citizens are not the same thing as "natural citizens" cannot be made.

Let me reiterate. According to the Minor Court, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That is the left's entire argument being shot down in a nutshell.

[PA-RIVER]

I confess, I called Blade a communist Sheetbag and he's vanished since then.

I think broke his shell.

[Fantasywriter]

Oh, and speaking of BladeBryan and the Fogbowers—get this. They have figured out why we ‘refuse to accept Obama’s birth certificate’. Here’s the conclusion:

< < “Sterngard Friegen wrote:
esseff - the birthers just can’t get their heads around the fact that we have a President who’s half black. And is smarter than they could ever dream to be.”

I also think that they are confused because his black heritage doesn’t include slavery. The idea of a black person that doesn’t “know their place[sic]” probably makes them very uncomfortable. Plus he’s way smarter than them [sic]...

posted by Slartibartfast > >

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2149&start=1775

[Fantasywriter]

Trust me, he wore it as a badge of honor. He’s full on moonbat on wheels w a marxist chaser. Finally got the zot, thanks to a new member [Obama Exposer] who blew the lid of Blade’s lying Obot-shilling racket.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

This is a good time to interject this point. Your quote above is critical to the point. You said:

"The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by "natural-born citizen." Which is virtually identical to what the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett while they were discussing the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:

"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."

[PA-RIVER]

Thanks for the update.

I always suspected Blade was an O’Bunga sheetbag zombie.

[DTxAg]

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:
"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."

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?

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks, I worked at coming up with just the right description of how I felt about him. (them.) :)

I think you are also right about the "needing some action" point. I find it annoying that this issue isn't being discussed on MORE websites, and i'm disgusted that it's relevance is slowly being displaced by the likely election results this year.

For me, it is not enough that Obama be thrown out of office, He should never be recognized as having been there legitimately in the first place. He is like an invading force which overwhelmed our Castle's defenses and sat on our King's thrown. Once he is thrown off the throne, it is not enough to claim he rightfully ruled while there. He needs to be exposed as an illegitimate bastard that never had a right to be there in the first place!

This is what our History books need to say, and this lesson needs to be hammered into the consciousness of America. He was NOT our President. He was a Con-Man that fooled the majority of Stupid people into letting him sit on the throne.

The corollary is that everyone who enabled him to perpetrate this fraud needs to be thrown in the dungeon.

[bluecat6]

Remember in late 2008. I believe it was Berg’s case that actually got onto the docket at SCOTUS. And the judge that seemed to make the most specific demands or may took the most interest was Justice Souter. This was in November. The case then is dismissed in December. 6 months later - Souter ‘retires’.

His sudden ‘retirement’ has been somewhat of a mystery.

Though a stretch, I have wondered if there is any linkage of his stance in the Donofrio case and his sudden retirement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2128383/posts

http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1302645

From the above link there is this link - but it is dead:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

“Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of
judcial (sic) discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President...” “

So SCOTUS and Souter could have punted this case in November since it was accepted at judicial discretion.

They ended up punting the case in December. A few months later the ‘ring leader’, who apparently wanted to use the courts ‘judicial discretion’ to look into this issue, retires.

[DiogenesLamp]

They live in the world of their delusions. Herman Cain was having MAJOR support until the hit pieces started coming out. Alan Keyes is very popular among some of the more conservative circles in America. (I used to be a member of BAM-PAC.) Alan West, J.C. Watts,(I sent him money and campaigned for Him) Llyod Marcus, AlfonZo Rachel, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. are all highly popular in the Conservative movement.

Conservatism is a meritocracy based methodology. We believe a person ought to have the right to be as successful as their skills and talents will allow them to be. We actually DO look at their character, not their skin color. It is the Liberals with all their "affirmative action" programs that want to create a government mandated racial basis for success.

Screw them and their stupid beliefs, and by the way, Obama isn't smart, he's an IDIOT. (And so is anyone who thinks he's "smart." )

[DiogenesLamp]

Trust me, he wore it as a badge of honor. He’s full on moonbat on wheels w a marxist chaser. Finally got the zot, thanks to a new member [Obama Exposer] who blew the lid of Blade’s lying Obot-shilling racket.

I noticed he stopped replying to me most of the time. :)

[Fantasywriter]

El Sordo, the person whose zot you are lamenting, BladeBryan, runs a site called thefogbow.com. Here’s just one of hundreds of anti-FR posts from that site:

< < A newbie Freeper links to Loren’s article exposing Corsi’s dubious journalism:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2824091/posts

The poor fellow didn’t realize that “free” means that only the Freep Official Truth is allowed, and is quickly banned. The usual Freep idiots do their victory dance for Konstitushanal Gummint. I’d feel dirty looking at FreeRepublic, almost like watching drunken derelicts paid to fight each other, or like making fun of mental hospital patients, if Freepers weren’t such a[$$]holes. > >

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2149&start=1750

(Thank you, Mr. Robinson, for removing a world-class obot, via the zot received by BladeBryan.)

[Fantasywriter]

‘I noticed he stopped replying to me most of the time. :)’

Henceforth, it will ‘All of the time’.

;)

[edge919]

Read post #27. The court contradicted itself several times and made several flawed and unsupported arguments in response to the plaintiffs. The only thing they really did was say that they didn’t have to accept the plaintiff’s arguments as true. It’s a very poorly written and supported decision. Read post #27.

[DiogenesLamp]

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?

For most of this nation's existence, the term "native" was used interchangeably with "natural born". The Quote in Minor says this very thing. In the 19th Century, it was uncommon to find anyone who was "native born" but was not "natural born" because there were very few foreign parent transients when everyone arrived by sailing ship.

In the example you quote above, I am referring to the modern usage of the term "native" as opposed to the 19th century usage of it. Modern Usage is that a "native" is anyone born here, with no consideration of whether the parents were part of the community or not.

My point was that the 14th amendment describes exactly this modern usage of the word "native." It grants citizenship to anyone born here. The Central point of many Obama Legitimacy trolls is that this means the same thing as Article II "natural born citizen", and that the ruling in Wong Kim Ark does as well.

My drawing attention to the Minor Quote is to point out that the Supreme court SPECIFICALLY said the Constitution Does not SAY who shall be "natural born citizens." The Court Specifically said the 14th Amendment (which means just being born here.) Does not refer to "natural born citizens." This completely shoots down the argument that just being "born here" or being a "native" in modern usage, is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen."

That quote shows that the court said it is NOT the same thing.