No, actually it’s not. The judges in Ankeny v. Indiana said that Minor defined NBC. They opined that there was phantom guidance to go further than this, but they never could support it with actual legal precedence. That court also admitted that the SCOTUS said that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship.
“No, actually it’s not.”
__
Well, I beg to differ, and I would be happy to cite the dozens of cases that have ruled otherwise. Here’s how the list begins:
“Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g., Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“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”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012).”
And that’s just the beginning. I’d be happy to post the rest if you’d like.
Not a single one has reached the conclusion that Obama is ineligible. Not a single member of either chamber of the Congress has filed an objection to the vote of the Electoral College in either of the last two Presidential elections.
I know that you find your arguments to be completely persuasive, and you expect others to be persuaded as well. But until you can demonstrate that others have in fact been persuaded, you are making Ha Ha’s point and mine: Your arguments constitute “proof” only in your own mind, and not in anyone else’s, certainly not those with the qualifications and legal authority to pass such judgments, which to date have been unanimously opposed to yours.