Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

There were only two persons under consideration in Ankeny v Daniels, John McCain and Barack Obama. The three judge panel had already discussed Senator McCain’s eligibility and they then moved on to discuss Barack Obama.
The section of the decision that I referenced begins with: “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.” Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.
Parse the words of the ruling to your heart’s content. The Ankeny ruling ordered that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was found to have acted properly in issuing Certificates of Ascertainment for the Indiana Electoral votes to Barack Obama’s Electors in 2008.

The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.

The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions. For example, in Larry Klayman’s Florida ballot challenge, the judge hearing the reconsideration lawsuit after the first lawsuit was dismissed quoted from the Ankeny decision: Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, 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.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV


183 posted on 02/16/2013 1:18:30 AM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
There were only two persons under consideration in Ankeny v Daniels, John McCain and Barack Obama. The three judge panel had already discussed Senator McCain’s eligibility and they then moved on to discuss Barack Obama.

Sorry, but this simply is NOT an accurate characertization. They talked about the plaintiffs' argument although the court lied and contradicted themselves. They did not discuss Obama's specific eligibility.

Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.

No it's not. If it was, his name would have been mentioned. And I've already given the direct quote which showed the only legal pronouncement which was that they perceived a disagreement between the plaintiffs sources and the Supreme Court statements on NBC, and concluded it was enough they didn't have to "accept" the plaintiffs argument as true. This decision NEVER says Obama is eligible for office. They only ruled that the governor of Indiana could not be held liable to vet eligibility of candidates. READ THE DECISION and what it actually says.

The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.

The decision says nothing about Obama being born in Hawaii.

The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions.

It has been used, but incorrectly and inaccurately. There's NOTHING in the Ankeny decision that makes Obama eligible for office.

“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, 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.”

I've already shown by footnote that the Ankeny court contradicted this statement and said the Wong Kim Ark decision does NOT make anyone a natural-born citizen in accordance with Article II. It also noted that the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. There's is NO legal precedent in Ankeny to make Obama a natural-born citizen. The other courts you have mentioned are trying to rely on dicta form a state appeals court, but they are ignoring that the Supreme Court itself unanimously cited Minor on Article II eligibility as all children born in the country to citizen parents.

288 posted on 02/17/2013 3:48:36 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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