Replies

You have a ONE SENTENCE holding in Ankeny. That should not give you any difficulty.

You have 3 sentences that negates and counters the dicta they write in their opinion, and to that 'ONE SENTENCE' you are referring to. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. The whole thing is a sucker's opinion.

Again Parsnips, here it is,

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.

"For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s 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.

"We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..."

It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta.

The only holding that mattered in Indiana:

"We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. "

It doesn't CONTRADICT the holding. You didn't put in the ENTIRE sentence. You said: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..." It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta. The ACTUAL sentence reads: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BORN ABROAD." [caps added to show what you left out.] That's the REAL COMPLETE sentence. It gets followed by: That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty united states is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. " This comes from footnote 14 and 15 found at the bottom of pages 17 and 18 of the decision which can be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf (Very simple. No contradictions. The Ankeny Court didn't deal with foreign born citizens. It just dealt with those born in the United States. Just as the Wong Court did with poor Wong, who was born in the United States. That does not, in any way, contradict the Ankeny Court's holding about those born IN THE USA. Not even talking about the same thing.) Now, lets look at your last statement: ""We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. " Lets rewrite that a little so that its all in one place. . . "We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments [ that . . ."there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)"] fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." And, what does the Ankeny Court say, again: "Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)" Its a published case. The Vattel two-citizen parent theory is NOT good law. The Ankeny Court shot it down in flames. parsy