As we’ve shown several times, Ankeny’s reasoning was flawed. “Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.” At the time of the framing of the Constitution, you couldn’t be both and the father’s allegiance determined that of the child. It’s a great argument Ankeny makes that Obama would be considered a natural born subject, but far from a natural born citizen. That’s what you call the Ankeny of defeat.
Ankeny upheld a motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. They sued the governor of Indiana and didn't sufficiently support their claim to the court(s) that the governor had a responsibility to vet the eligibility of presidential candidates. Anything beyond that is flufff. The appeal court's flawed rationale over phantom guidance from Wong Kim Ark on natural born citizenship doesn't magically affect whether the governor has a legal responsibility or not. It's an aside. The Indiana Supreme Court doesn't need to consider whether the appeals court was on drugs when it wrote about natural born citizenship, but just on whether the plaintiff sufficiently stated a justiciable claim against the defendant. This has no direct bearing on the cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, although they may have failed over similar procedural issues and not how they perceived Obama's eligibilty.
The State Supreme Court made a decision based on “facts” that were never introduced in trial and were actually outright lies. They decided that because Sound Transit supposedly had posted several layers down on their website that at a meeting that was not actually even open to public input that they were going to be discussing the acquisition of certain real properties between Seattle and Olympia... that sufficient notice had been given. My dad had never even touched a computer at that time. The decision was a politically influenced farce. The twisted logic that they used was based on lies and precedents that had no relationship to reality.
So jamese777 don't try to tell me that the decision of some hack court in Indiana is the last word on this. As has been pointed out courts are political bodies. Their reasoning is often influenced by politics more than sound legal reasoning. In our state the justices are elected like all other politicians.
For those who are interested. In the end my parents legal expenses were far more than what they actually received in compensation for their land. Their legal expenses were over $550,000. They still owed $500,000 on the land. They were awarded $450,000 with no compensation for their legal expenses. Inferior property across the street which was smaller and had several major problems associated with it sold for over a $1,000,000 ten years before. Sound Transit spent approximately $1,500,000 in legal expenses trying to keep from paying a fair price, not including a PR campaign designed to spread disinformation and a whole lot of political arm twisting.