Like about 97% of what is posted on this topic - it is complete BS.
No, the ruling is quite real.
“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.”
That wouldn’t be the same Court that put the following disclaimer in the footnote of their decision, would it:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation& 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. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
So they admit that they misrepresented the words of the court in their citation of the words of the court. And we’re supposed to take this decision seriously??? It’s like asking us to take the misrepresentations posted by a bought-and-paid-for Obamabot seriously.
Uncle Chip