“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.
Most of the cases ruled on procedural grounds ... and officially that's all the Ankeny court ruled on too. They didn't have any real legal support for their assumption that natural-born citizens are those born in the country regardless of the parents' citizenship so they ended up saying that they found enough disagreement in a Supreme Court ruling to justify that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument as true. They never declared Obama or ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen. Any subsequent court that cites this decision on the basis of such a precedent is doing so dishonestly.
Here’s how the list begins:
And of course, you found one that dishonestly cites the Ankeny decision.
And that’s just the beginning. I’d be happy to post the rest if you’d like.
Go for it, but do so understanding that quantity does not equal quality. None of those courts or decisions outweighs the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the Minor case that exclusively defined NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."
I know that you find your arguments to be completely persuasive, and you expect others to be persuaded as well.
The SCOTUS citations speak for themselves for those persons who are honest enough to read them and admit what is being said.
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.
Sorry, but this is simply false. The Ankeny decision admitted that Minor defined NBC and that the same court said that the 14th amendment does NOT define NBC. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
By footnote, the Ankeny decision notes this is a positive declaration for how NBC is defined, although they added an assumption that isn't supported by the context of the decision.
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.12
12. 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.
By claiming the Minor court left the issue open on persons born of alien parents, the Ankeny court admitted that NBC was officially defined as those born to citizen parents ... BUT the Minor court did NOT leave the issue open for anyone else. They considered EVERY known way that someone could become a citizen and under their review, Obama would not be a U.S. citizen because his father never naturalized.
Next the court shows that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed that the Minor decision was about citizenship:
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.”
Now, principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution, as expressed in Minor, was a verbatim match of Vattel's definition from Law of Nations, which the Ankeny court tried to downplay as "an eighteenth century treatise" ignoring that Law of Nations is widely and regularly cited with authority by the higher court. But the bottom line is that Ankeny admits it has no precedent for declaring ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen who is not born in the country to citizen parents:
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 ...
The court could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen because they affirmed Minor's definition of NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Wong Kim Ark was NOT born in the country to citizen parents, thus he could NOT be declared to be a natural-born citizen, and under REAL Supreme Court guidance, neither can Obama nor anyone else who is not born to citizen parents.