Can you show me an Obama eligibility lawsuit where Minor was cited successfully?
Here’s one that relied on US v Wong Kim Ark:
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The “Daniels” who defended Obama’s eligibility in Ankeny v Daniels is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.
How many pages are the talking points up to now? ... Your n00b ilk are so transparent in trying to dissonance the issues. It is a fact that just because a court issues a ruling doesn’t make it constitutionally correct. Cn you agitprops get you head around that yet?
You pretend to believe that our courts are legitimate, in the face of John Roberts’ disgraceful performance on O-care?
“The ‘Daniels’ who defended Obama’s eligibility in Ankeny v Daniels is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.”
On Free Republic, we tend to defend the Constitution, not political correctness, such as the GPO-e deal not to contest Barry’s eligibility in exchange for the Dems not attacking McCain not even being a citizen at birth and only being made one retroactively by an act of congress regardless of being born in or out of the zone.
I note Scalia’s recent quip from the bench chastising all the GOP senators who voted to re-authorize The Voting Rights Act even though it enshrined race-based nose-counting of voters and presumed that blacks would vote as a block for blacks. Scalia asked in so many words “Who would vote against a bill named ‘The Voting Rights Act.’”
It was clear from Scalia’s comments that he intended to rule the Act unconstitutional regardless of political correctness. “Birthers” are constitutionalists who tend to line up with Scalia. Anti-birthers have a number of different agendas, it seems.