[Sibre Fan]

Today, the Indiana Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the case brought by Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse against the Indiana Governor, which sought to prohibit the Governor of certifying the popular vote from the November 2008 general election, on the grounds that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama were natural born citizens.

[Technical Editor]

Anyone can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattel’s view is U.S. law will be awarded the Barack H. Obama Mental Acuity Award.

[SunkenCiv]

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. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."

Kenya, the 51st state...

[NoLibZone]

"As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”

Is this really a Court, I mean a non Satire Comedy Court writing this?

Was Sammy Davis Jr a Judge in Indiana?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ping to big news. An NBC interpretation handed down.

(My two week hiatus from birther threads is officially over as of today.)

[plenipotentiary]

“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.””

See how they quoted Wong Kim Ark, “...the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution”, and promptly went on to ignore said principles, ie Vattell, ie

“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

eg In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/

The Indiana Court has bent itself, and added itself to the role of shame.

[roylll]

Remember the # 1 rule of politico’s, tyrants ,etc. ” When the Rules don’t fit CHANGE THE RULES ”

Is the Arkney decision the “official” start of revisionist history ?

[Future Useless Eater]

Since when is the Indiana Appellate Court the FINAL SAY in the matter of a FEDERAL election?

This seems ripe for appeal(s) to higher court(s)... maybe it could be on the road to SCOTUS?

[El Gato]

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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

Wong Kim Ark was not about natural born citizenship. The court acknowledges this in footnote 14. Thus they have relied on dicta for "guidance". Dicta is not precident, AFAIK.

At least this is an appealable case. The Indiana Appellate Court erred in taking dicta as settled law.

[BorderRaven]

I’m wondering if as the above excerpt says accurately from the dismissal, if the court intended to say “Article II, Section 1, Clause 4” or perhaps meant to say “Article II, Section 1, Clause 5”.

If I am correct then the appeal was not properly dismissed.

Can anybody contact the appellants and ask for verification?