In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
This would be a lot more meaningful if the judge could come up with more than a simple denial. He gives no reasoning for making this statement, so the comment is not compelling, especially when we have unanimous support from the Supreme Court itself in Luria v. United States.
And: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin
AGain, this is nothing more than a denial with no legal foundation to support it. The court doesn't cite anything to show why it disagrees.
And: Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Yes, it is true that those born within the United States are natural-born citizens .... those born within the United States to citizen parents. As for anyone else, the Supreme Court has said, "No."
A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.
“No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.”
Wong Kim Ark has been cited successfully in Article II section 1 rulings, such as in Ankeny. Minor v. Happersett has been cited unsuccessfully in Article II, Section 1 rulings such as in Allen v. Obama:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
No court has ever ruled that Minor v. Happersett has applicability to natural born citizenship or presidential eligibility.
“In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea.”