Replies

Did the Indiana court take up the case on its merits, or not? If it didn’t take up the case, then it has no business ruling on anything IN the case, because it hasn’t gone through the due process of hearing input. The court can jaw around all they want but from a legal sense the only binding thing that court said was that they denied the plaintiff standing.

It’s sort of like somebody saying, “I’m not the referee in the game and I didn’t even watch it, but I say the pass was incomplete.” Doesn’t work that way. If you’re not the ref, you can spout off all you want but even if your day job is to referee the NFL, your jawing about a game your not refereeing has no more weight than the lowliest couch potato second-guessing the refs on TV.

Just glancing at that site you linked to, almost all Dicey’s references depend on the Brith Nationality Act of 1870, which is about 100 years after the US Constitution was ratified. To use this source in an attempt to discern exactly what the US Constitution’s Framers meant when they said “natural born citizen” is about like using 2011 laws to discern what the US Congress intended in its laws on women’s suffrage in 1911. There’s a lot of water under the bridge between those 2 times, and a more accurate measure would be the writings actually cited or read by the Founding Fathers when they were writing the Constitution.

That would include Vattel, whose book was only recently discovered as being LONG OVERDUE from one of the Founding Fathers’ (Jefferson’s?) library.

Wong Kim Ark wasn’t about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP, but only about citizenship - which the Constitution only addressed/defined in the 14th Amendment, which might explain why the court involved itself wih writings around that time.

But Article II of the Constitution - speaking specifically about NATURAL BORN citizenship - was written about 100 years before the 14th Amendment, and the proper century to reflect the views of those authors is the 1700’s, not the 1800’s, 1900’s, or 2000’s. Probably not even 1607, which is over 150 years removed from the ratification of the US Constitution. The court in Wong Kim Ark seems to be projecting the mindset of the late 1800’s onto the Founding Fathers, even while citing a previous Supreme Court decision which treated natural born citizenship differently than just plain citizenship and said that natural born citizenship had not been defined. The end determination of the WKA court regarded citizenship, not specifically “natural born” citizenship so they might not have thought it made much difference that their sources were all either 150 years before the Founding Fathers or 100 years after. A court case specifically taking up the definition of NATURAL BORN citizenship should not be so careless.

The citizenship status of both slaves and married women were largely determined by factors other than place of birth. That’s more than half the population whose citizenship (or lack thereof) was determined by something besides place of birth. That’s a lot of people.

Boy, if I keep on doing this kind of stuff I am going to be able to work as a para-legal or something. OK, I read the stuff and googled some stuff, and NO The Case Was NOT Dismissed On Standing Stuff!!!

It was dismissed because there was NO LEGAL BASIS for all the stuff the Vattle Birthers were saying!!! That is because all the law the Vattle Birthers tried to use was just, in Mark Levin’s words, “Vattle Birther Crap.”

A “Failure to State a Claim is A 12B6 thingy which is this: “Within a judicial forum, the failure to present sufficient facts which, if taken as true, would indicate that any violation of law occurred or that the claimant is entitled to a legal remedy.”

Which means when the court said:

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.”

The Vattle Birthers were all wrong in their legal theories.

So, nooo, “standing whatever” is not mentioned there as why they threw it out. Which means, they must have read the law and decided the Vattle Birthers didn’t know what they were talking about. *Which I can certainly understand!!!). Which means if the Vattle Birthers file some more “ Vattle Birther crap” they are going to lose some more.