Replies

"You are misusing Wong Kim Ark and you are wrong."

Sure, me and the three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is "wrong".

That's very believable. /s

Look, you're entitled to your very strange opinion, but if you're going to opine that someone is wrong, perhaps that will carry a bit more weight if you can provide some supporting evidence of that opinion, preferably a court decision or two would be nice.

"Sure, me and the three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is "wrong".

That's very believable. /s"

Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Based upon the language of Article 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 Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents

Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...

1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?

Here's what it says:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?

2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14

What does footnote 14 say?

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.

It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.

So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?

If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).

That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.

You are using an argument based on good solid common law, nothing wrong with the argument. You are wrong to think it has anything to do with dual citizenship because it doesn’t. I agree with the Wong Kim Ark court but I don’t agree with you. IMHO President Obama was a US citizen at birth and probably a natural born citizen. I’m not talking about Article II of the US Constitution, I’m talking about the 14th Amendment and “jurisdiction”. You are mixing the two up. Wong Kim Ark and Perkins vs Elg don’t deal with dual citizenship. I’m not saying President Obama isn’t a US citizen, or that he wasn’t born one, or that he hasn’t been one his whole life. I’m not saying that the Indiana Court of Appeals is wrong either. If there is a problem IMHO it isn’t about his US citizenship. That’s why I asked you if you could read Dutch or Bahasa Indonesian.

I am also talking about Article VI of the US Constitution as affected by Section 2 of Article II. According to Article VI Treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land” alongside the Constitution itself. In other words he who makes them, according to Article II Section 2, the President, in consultation with the Senate, is the sole representative of the United States. Under International Law, which in the founders’ day was called the Law of Nations, a dual citizen might be legally incapable of making a valid treaty or international agreement. Canada, Australia and Thailand are worried about that. The eligibility clause isn’t what I’m talking about and I’m not arguing with you about it.