“I’ve quoted the parts of the decisions that do.”
“Which is why I said they were permanent immigrants and residents (which were the court’s words). This would make the child a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, which is why they didn’t call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.”
We also don’t know whether there are people living on Mars. But there is no proof of Martians and there is no proof of Stanley Dunham’s expatriation (which would be legally irrelevant anyway concerning her son).
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant. The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time. As long as judges and lawmakers accept those public statements issued on the record, that’s all that matters.
When lawsuits have no merit, they don’t get heard. Ankeny can be appealed. If it reached an incorrect conclusion, it will be overturned but again, your opinion of the decision is irrelevant. Until it is appealed and overturned, it stands as the only court decision to rule specfically on the Natural Born Citizen status of Barack Hussein Obama II.
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . .” The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity”.
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The “jury is still out” for you and some others on the fringe but its been “in with a verdict” for most people for over a year now.
Justice Scalia has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Orly Taitz to the other justices (Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz). It was rejected.
Chief Justice Roberts has presented an Obama eligiblity suit also from Orly Taitz (Lightfoot v Bowen) to the other Justices. It was rejected.
Justice Clarence Thomas has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Leo Donofrio to the other Justices, it was rejected.
Justice Anthony Kennedy has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Philip Berg to the other Justices, it was rejected.
The 14th amendment doesn't change or impact the definition of natural born citizen. It didn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.
There is no distinction in the law between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. They are synomous terms.
Wrong. You can easily be a citizen at birth and NOT be a natural born citizen. I'm pretty sure we've already documented this.
I quote the following from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
What you quoted makes Obama a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen. You're not helping your own case.
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant.
If this were true, you wouldn't post such lengthy replies trying vainly to disprove what I've posted.
The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time.
Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you're perhaps conflating 'legal briefs' with 'faither blogs.'
Here’s a definition of legal standing from Wikipedia:
Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, "the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case" and is followed by "the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ..."
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.