>>...Isn’t that key facter in being a NBS? ...having two US citizen parents?...<<
The key “factor” in being an NBC (Natural-Born-Citizen) has been defined by the Indiana judge, and now Malihi (who relied upon the Indiana judge’s decision) as merely being born on US soil. Parents citizenship has no bearing.
We have three branches of govt. None is superior to the other — yet we seem to have this common acceptance that once a court rules, it is *final*.
I’d point to Wickard v. Filburn, this eligibility case with Obama and point out that decisions such as these defy simple, common sense.
But then, what is our recourse to right obvious judicial errors?
The amendment process.
No. Citizenship of the parents is not relevant.
The key “factor” in being an NBC (Natural-Born-Citizen) has been defined by the Indiana judge, and now Malihi (who relied upon the Indiana judge’s decision) as merely being born on US soil. Parents citizenship has no bearing.
Correct. That is the law. That is how the Supreme Court of the United States will decide the case if the issue ever reaches it.
And, as the Congressional Research Service Opinion spells out in simple terms that anyone can understand, that is what was intended.
A person born outside the United States is born under the sovereignty of some other state which would then have jurisdiction to dictate his acts. A person born inside the United States is subject, at birth only to the sovereignty of the United States.
But then, what is our recourse to right obvious judicial errors?
There is no judicial error here. On the record before him, the judge made the correct decision exactly as forecast.