“In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea.”
What was in the Court’s actual ruling and not in a footnote that has become precedent for many other eligibility challenges is: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
What was in the Court’s actual ruling and not in a footnote that has become precedent for many other eligibility challenges is: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 200That's not the ruling. The ruling was that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true, and that the governor of Indiana couldn't be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The footnote immediately contradicts this claim because there is no guidance to support this conclusion. And nowhere in this decision is Obama or anybody else declared to be a natural-born citizen. It's good slight of hand, but it's still nothing more than dicta.
What was in the Court’s actual ruling and not in a footnote that has become precedent for many other eligibility challenges is: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 200That's not the ruling. The ruling was that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true, and that the governor of Indiana couldn't be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The footnote immediately contradicts this claim because there is no guidance to support this conclusion. And nowhere in this decision is Obama or anybody else declared to be a natural-born citizen. It's good slight of hand, but it's still nothing more than dicta.