Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand; Will Escott
"Sure, me and the three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is "wrong".

That's very believable. /s"

Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

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
Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...

1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?

Here's what it says:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?

2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14
What does footnote 14 say?
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 is immaterial.
It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.

So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?

If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).

That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.

231 posted on 05/10/2011 2:03:52 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from

There's an easy explanation for that: the original Constitution, of course, didn't number the clauses. That's done later, for reference. The original Clause 3 was later superseded by the 12th Amendment. In versions of the Constitution you can find online, that clause is often highlighted somehow because of the change. So if you don't count Clause 3 (because it's been replaced), that makes the original Clause 5 now Clause 4.

246 posted on 05/10/2011 3:01:18 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson