I hate to seem dumb, but I am missing the relevancy of Diaz. It looks like the Indiana court was just piling on the Birthers by giving them one last kick in the pants in case the door didn’t hit them in *ss on the way out — to wit, and saying in effect “Dumb *sses! Even an illegal mexican who fathers kids here and is on his way back across the Rio Grande can make little “natural born citizen” bundles of joy while he is here.”
OR
It was being cited for two reasons, one above, and as a “standard of review” case which had the extra kick of the NBC angle.
A standard of review is hard to explain, but basically in this case it would be the court saying to them, “I have the right to kick you out the door, because you have not really overcome the burden you had coming in the door of my courtroom.”
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
The placement of Diaz at the end of the case makes me think it was more “standard of review”.
Also, I have said all along the Indiana decison is not binding on feds, only on any courts below it. What it is good for, is that it is a whole lot shorter and easier to read than Wong; that it is current; that it shows how modern courts use Wong; and it specifically mentions Birthers; and it specifically mentions the Vattel end- around-the-Constitution stuff, and —it deals with Obama!
I apologize for not answering you quicker. For some reason, I had it in the back of my mind this was one of those things bp2 brought up.
And finally, the Diaz decision really goes to show how stupid the government is. You got a guy here who is married and got two kids, AND A JOB, and been here nearly 20 years, and we ship him back so mom and the kids can go on welfare and food stamps....
And, he probably just swum the Rio Grande and come back anyway.
parsy, who hopes this answers your questions
You don't seem to understand the irrelevancy in citing that case Diaz-Case by Indiana. It's a totally unsupported statement that the Indiana court chose to place in their opinion from a circuit court. And you spamming the thread with this is not going hand credibility to your viewpoint.
These judges who dismissed the Indiana case hardly have a background in deciding constitutional issues. Judge Brown who addressed family issues and substance abuse. Judge May background is in insurance defense and personal injury litigation. Judge Crone founded a program that minority students law related field and founded a South Bend commission in the status of African-American male coalition against drugs.
Notice, in Diaz, that there were some “abuse of discretion” questions, which is a “standard of review” for certain agency decisions. Courts have to give a legal basis for what they do. That is why we get written opinions.
LoL! Hey Parsy, where did you cut and paste this one from?
I see you didn't find anywhere in the Indiana opinion that Wong Ark or Barack Obama are natural born citizens.
Psssst Parsy, because it's not there.