Sorry, but this conclusion is out of cherry-picking and ignorance. They present it in a way in which it could not be challenged, especially since it's immaterial.
What Edge doesn’t understand or else ignores is that “Ankeny et. al.” stipulated that Obama was born in Honolulu.
So, can you find a direct quote stating this??
“Sorry, but this conclusion is out of cherry-picking and ignorance. They present it in a way in which it could not be challenged, especially since it’s immaterial.”================================================
You’re entitled to your opinion, the Justices are entitled to their’s. The difference is that their opinion carries legal weight and your’s doesn’t.
The Ankeny decision focuses on two issues only: whether a sitting Senator can be an elector and whether Obama and McCain were Native Born.
In the Court of Appeals’ decision the justices clearly note that the plaintiffs are arguing NOT about where Obama was born but whether a person with a foreign born parent can be president.
Here are their exact words, and I quote: “As to President Obama’s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called ‘birther’ movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to ‘the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate’ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”
THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE INSTANT CASE MAKE A DIFFERENT LEGAL ARGUMENT BASED STRICTLY ON CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. [capitalization, mine] Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there is a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States”; and a “natural born Citizen;” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.”