Replies

"The problem is the the Supreme Court precedent does NOT fully support that Obama is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution."
__

And that, too, is your opinion. But that is not how a single court has ruled.

Of course, you can believe that the courts have ruled incorrectly. That's commonly seen among those on the losing side of court cases. But you've got a tough road to hoe -- it's not like these judges are all of the President's political party, or only represent a certain geographical segment of the country, or have insufficient judicial training or experience to render credible decisions. There has simple been not the slightest indication of a single judge agreeing with the "heritage-based" (two citizen parent) theory of natural born citizenship.

Notice that the first decision in this series, Ankeny v. Daniels, was issued (unanimously, of course) by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs did not like the ruling and appealed it to the Indiana Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. That set the stage for an appeal to SCOTUS.

Remember what happened? The plaintiffs didn't even file the appeal. They let the deadline expire and they allowed the decision to stand. And this was supposedly the case that would finally have given the birthers the SCOTUS decision they were looking for.

You can vote President Obama out of office. You can lobby for a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the currently existing laws concerning birthright citizenship.

Or you can continue to complain that all the judges are getting it wrong and keep hoping that some judge will see it your way. But, frankly, it doesn't look like your chances of succeeding that way are very good.

And that, too, is your opinion. But that is not how a single court has ruled.

I just explained that these courts ... and there have only been a couple ... have gone by completely different jsutifications. One says Minor proves the NBC definition is outside the Constitution (without actually acknowledging what that is) while another says they arrived at a conclusion from Wong Kim Ark that wasn't actually used as a legal precedent in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor, except that they mistakenly claimed that it wan't a comprehensive definition, which is completely false.

There has simple been not the slightest indication of a single judge agreeing with the "heritage-based" (two citizen parent) theory of natural born citizenship.

This would mean something if they could agree on a reason NOT to agree with the definition in Minor. And this is wrong, because the Ankeny court did acknowledge this precedent from Minor. They argued that Wong Kim Ark provided guidance for an explanded definition of NBC, except they had to admit that Wong Kim Ark provided no legal basis for this conclusion. It was simply a feint to try to ignore the issue.

Notice that the first decision in this series, Ankeny v. Daniels, was issued (unanimously, of course) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

A three-justice panel in a state court doesn't outweigh 18 Supreme Court justices. Besides, the Ankeny decision was not on the basis of natural-born citizenship. They only created a "conclusion" of what NBC might mean in order to justify their real decision, that being that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true. At the time, the plaintiffs did NOT rely on Minor for their definition of NBC. They should have. The Indiana Supreme Court simply allowed that the governor couldn't be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates. That's the only thing the Ankeny case decided.