[tired_old_conservative]

“So...what the hell does that mean...English, please.”

One of these tpes of suits was filed in Indiana. Last year, an Indiana Court stated, based on existing Supreme Court dicta in Wong Kim Ark, that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant to the natural-born citizen status of a child born here. That is, left unchallenged, it blows Apuzzo’s argument on that subject out of the water. He is simply filing a supplemental brief to argue why he thinks that Court was in error.

I doubt it will do him any good, but he is entitled to do so.

[omegadawn]

The problem with the Indiana case is that it reference Wong KIm Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen. Actually the Wong KIm Ark stated that due to the fact that Ark’s parents had immigrated (legally) and had set up residence that the child was entitled to Native born (naturalized ) citizenship equal to that of a Natural Born citizen ( both parents). The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.

[Issaquahking]

One of these types of suits was filed in Indiana. Last year, an Indiana Court stated, based on existing Supreme Court dicta in Wong Kim Ark, that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant to the natural-born citizen status of a child born here. That is, left unchallenged, it blows Apuzzo’s argument on that subject out of the water. He is simply filing a supplemental brief to argue why he thinks that Court was in error.

Good to see noise receive challenge. In "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" (on page 4) is an excellent commentary about the how bad things can become left unchecked.

The Cosnstitution is our most fundamental law. It is, in its own words, "the supreme Law of the Land". Its translation into the legal rules which we live occurs through the actions ofall government entities, federal and state.The entitity we know as "constitutional law"is the creation of not only of the decisions of the Supreme Court. but also the various congresses and of the President.

Yet in the court system, particularly the decisions of the the Supreme Court, that mostobservers identify as providing the basis corpus of "constitutional Law". This body of law, this judicial handiwork, is, in a fundamental way, unique in our scheme, for the Court is charged routinely, day in and day out, with the awesome task of addressing some of the msot basic and important to the stability of the law so necessary for good government. But as constitutional historian Charles Warren once noted,what is most important to remember is that "however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution, which is the law, not the decision of the court."

By this, of course, Warren did not mean that a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court lacks the character of binding law. He meant that the Constitution remains the constitution and that observers of the Court may fairly consider whether a particular Supreme Court decision was right or wrong. Ther remains a vibrant ands healthy debate among the members of the Supreme Court, as articulated in its opinions, and between the Court and academics, politicians, columnists and commentators, and the people generally, on whether the Court has correctly understood and applied the fundamental law of the Constitution. We have seen throughout history that when the Supreme Court greatly misconstrues the Constitution, generations of mischief may follow. The result is that, of its own accord or through the mechanism of the appointment process, the Supreme Court may come to revisit some of its doctrines and try, once again, to adjust its pronouncements to the commands of the Constitution.