Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[bushpilot1]

Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:

Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.

If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.

[RegulatorCountry]

Ankeny was dismissed for failing to state a claim, and that decision was upheld upon appeal in a state supreme court. That is the only legal conclusion reached in the matter of Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana.

Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen on the basis of the 14th Amendment. That was the question before the court and no other.

You're speculating upon unwritten meanings and attributing motives that did not exist. You avoid applying the rigor due to legal terms and legal decisions, in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

[Red Steel]

Indiana Supreme Court had no problem with that holding. So, yes, the issue was heard and ruled on as a matter of law and the case was dismissed—in part, because Obama is an NBC.

Wrong and wrong.

First, that's a false assumption. The state supreme court most likely didn't want to embarrass the Indiana appeals court because their opinion isn't worth dog poop. For what ever reasons they did not review it - you don't know and are jumping to conclusions. Second, the Indiana Court contradicts itself by stating Wong Kim Ark was not found to be a natural born citizen and then they cherry pick Blackstone using his natural born SUBJECT commentary as being the same as a natural born citizen that has the same meaning as the US Constitution NBC clause. Tsk Tsk...so much BS in the Indiana opinion, it is all bull-crap. It will never hold up to any scrutiny.

BP2 to Parsnips: LOL. Swing and strike.

Parsy it was game over for you awhile ago. You're still here - you lied.

[parsifal]

Dismissed cases and cases which are settled by summary judgment are just as much law as cases which go to hearing and then go up. The reasons for granting dismissal or reversing are the point.

For heavens sake, go to a law library and start reading the cases where summary judgment was upheld or reversed and sent back down. All kinds of law there. Go here and read the first page where it says “Opinion - For Publication”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

That means this is going to be printed and published as precedental law. People can cite Ankeny now, since the court published it. Some cases, are NOT published. Those usually can not be cited.

parsy

[parsifal]

He posted to me. I’m answering. If you don’t like it, tough. Turn me in. Whatever.

parsy

[RegulatorCountry]

... and the precedent established by dismissing the case for failing to state a claim would be what, parsifal?

[parsifal]

First, that’s a false assumption. The state supreme court most likely didn’t want to embarrass the Indiana appeals court because their opinion isn’t worth dog poop.

ASSUMPTION=”The state supreme court most likely didn’t . . .”

For the last time, from Ankeny:

The Birfers: “Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)”

The Ankeny Court: “Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”

That’s ONE SENTENCE. Pretty hard to get wrong. It’s LAW. Its PUBLISHED.

Born within the borders=NBC, regardless of parental citizenship

parsy

[Red Steel]

He posted to me. I’m answering. If you don’t like it, tough. Turn me in. Whatever.

parsy

OK, will do.

JimRob, he is back to trolling again after he said he would not. He asked for it.

[parsifal]

Among other things, that the Plaintiff’s failed to [LEGALLY} state a claim that Obama wasn’t eligible for office. He is. They have no claim. Read the decision. There’s about 5 pages devoted to the NBC argument.

parsy, who gave you a cite.

[parsifal]

They’re posting to me. I’m answering. If you call that trolling, zot me.

parsy, who is fed up with idiot birfers

[RegulatorCountry]

And, again, the precedent created by dismissing the case for failing to state a claim is what, parsifal?

[parsifal]

Here’s one of the precedents:

Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)

parsy

[cynwoody]

Someone would either persuade him to step down, or it would be torches and pitchforks time.

Well, that's the key, isn't it?

Absent torches and pitchforks, the Court does nothing or at most opines and defers to an impeachment process that doesn't happen. But should torches and pitchforks materialize for real, the Congress impeaches and removes, so the Court needn't do anything. Either way, the Court is at most an adviser, not a remover.

The key is to get up the torches and pitchforks. Counter-factual (not born in Hawaii) or esoteric (all the Vattel stuff) arguments about eligibility won't do the job. What Obama is actually doing in office just might.

[RegulatorCountry]

That is no legal precedent, parsifal.

But, playing along for a minute, did the court not caveat their own dicta by acknowledging the extralegal nature of their interpretation of Wong Kim Ark?

Why, yes, I believe they did.

Care to post that fine little bit of CYA?

[parsifal]

I’m not seeing any such thing. Looks pretty clear to me. One sentence is a hard thing to get wrong.

parsy

[BP2]

> Because DICTIONARIES ain’t law.

No, but since the phrase “natural-born Citizen” has not been defined by the SCOTUS — ESPECIALLY as it applies to Art II, § 1, Clause 5 — expect them to do so. Thar "ain't" no Case Law to trump in the first place, by gum!

And before you drone on and on about Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, which cites Wong Kim Ark v. US -13- times — even touting “According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases” — you AGAIN must understand how Dicey's “Conflict of Laws” applies to Obama’s situation. Dicey said:

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (emphasis added)

What does that mean?!

As Obama SR was a natural-born British Subject, he passes his allegiance to the British Crown on TWO generations, regardless of where his children (Obama Jr) & grand-children were born.

SO ... IF you hang your hat on the Ankeny opinion, you must do the same to Wong Kim Ark v. US, in which Justice Gray EXTENSIVELY cited Dicey's “Conflict of Laws”.

As such — according to your logic and reliance on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark — you've unwittingly cornered yourself into accepting that all three of them are British Subjects:

Again parsi ... choose your poison carefully.

[parsifal]

No sense in discussing what Dicey meant. It’s not relevant to this discussion. YOU figure out why. Two reasons, at least. Easy ones.

parsy

[Red Steel]

The Ankeny Court: “Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”

That would be Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Indiana, not Clause 4.

And from Indiana's opinion:

"15 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..."

They were irrelevant and immaterial to the issue??? That was the real issue whether or not Obama or Wong were natural born citizens. Indiana was talking out both sided of its ass. The case you love Parsy is worth dog-crap.

Born within the borders=NBC, regardless of parental citizenship

You should have given the small print they spewed a look-see. They fooled you, but you like being the court jester.

[RegulatorCountry]

Cited from Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana:

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs?complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it.

And then, in the footnotes on page 17 running to page 18 we have:

14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

15 We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

As I said, CYA.

[BP2]

> No sense in discussing what Dicey meant. It’s not relevant to this discussion.

You said MONTHS ago that you've read Wong Kim Ark v. US, and then you proved that you had NOT.

Have you gotten around to it yet? Because yeah ... it is VERY “relevant to this discussion”.

[parsifal]

I’m not seeing any problem with that. None at all. Does it in any way contradict the the ONE SENTENCE holding? Nope. Slam dunk!

parsy, who says please hurry, its almost 3:30 here. I gots to go to bed by then.