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.
Sorry. Missed you in rush.
“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.”
If you are born in the country, you don’t have to be naturalized, so discussions about that (naturalization) are irrelevant. Real simple.
You have a ONE SENTENCE holding in Ankeny. That should not give you any difficulty.
parsy