Yes, when the Entire world believes the World is flat, Columbus cannot be correct.* When the Entire World has decided that the Earth is in fact round, and at the center of the Universe, Galileo must be wrong when he says that it is not. When the ENTIRE Scientific community says that Light is carried by Ether waves, the Albert Einstein must be mistaken when he says that it is not.
The answer is right in front of you. It’s the simple answer, not the complicated, contorted arguments of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donogrio. The Chief Justice would not have sworn in someone who is not eligible.
You ARE painfully unacquainted with the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam. You are also not familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. BOTH fallacies are incorporated into your argument.
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. It’s time to accept the courts have decided based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the Law.
If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were "born here" and they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me.
.
* This is a common misunderstanding of the facts. Many people believed the world to be round at this time, (1492) but this fiction is widely repeated (as is the belief that being born here makes you a "natural" citizen) and so serves the purpose of my point.
“If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were “born here” and they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me. “
When you learn to read, try again. Slaves were considered property, and the Indians were discussed in WKA:
The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the clause in question.
That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;
that, by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only “with foreign nations” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
And it was observed that the language used in defining citizenship in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Woods, dissenting, were of opinion that the Indian in question, having severed himself from his tribe and become a bona fide resident of a State, had thereby become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, said:
Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only “Indians not taxed”), who were born within [p682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.
And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:
By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.
112 U.S. 1114.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
“This is a common misunderstanding of the facts. “
I think you’ve succinctly described your own problem. You misunderstand that the decision by the Indiana Court in Ankeny and Malihi’s decision agree with the Constitution, the 14th amendment, and the majority in Wong Kim Ark. Outside materials don’t matter. The way the law is now, Obama is eligible. If you think the law is wrong, work in your state legislature and with your federal reps to amend the Constitution to define natural born citizen the way you’d like it to be.
Of course that could take years. If what you really want is to see Obama out of office, work to get someone else elected.
Scientific facts have an existence independent of what anyone knows or thinks. Law is different; law, by definition, is what legislators and judges say it is. Otherwise, how could the law be different in New York from New Jersey or Alabama. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote more than 100 years ago, when you ask a lawyer what the law is, you are asking for nothing more or less than an accurate prediction of what a court will rule if asked this quesstion next week.