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
You have 3 sentences that negates and counters the dicta they write in their opinion, and to that 'ONE SENTENCE' you are referring to. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. The whole thing is a sucker's opinion.
Again Parsnips, here it is,
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.
"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;..."
It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta.
The only holding that mattered in Indiana:
"We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. "