The Indiana decision, if it can even
be called that, is a joke.
A big joke.
It can be called a decision because it legally is, and that's the classic bar stool complaint—it's a joke because it doesn't say what I want.
Nevertheless, there it is.
"16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, ... the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen."
What the Indiana court left out. It should be noted that Arthur successfully hid the facts from the public sufficiently enough for him not to be challenged on his incumbency for his lack of being a natural born citizen. In later years, Arthur attempted to keep his legacy intact, so he destroyed all the personal documents that related to his birth. Indiana's reasoning here is because Chester Arthur got away with it, precedent has been set, therefore, Obama should be able be an eligible and legal president. Poppycock!
Breckenridge Long was an attorney, excellent enough to become attorney general under FDR, concurrent with Charles Hughes’ tenure as chief justice. In 1916, when Hughes was running against Woodrow Wilson for president, Long, then representing the St. Louis Bar asked if Hughes was “A Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.” His article is concise and clear, confirming the definition stated by Chief Justices John Marshall, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham, and later, ironically, by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his decision in Perkins v. Elg where he cites Minor v. Happersett.
Any reader confused by all the names and references should ask. There is much BS floating about designed to obscure the truth. You will quickly find out to whom the truth is important by asking. Very little about this eligibility issue is simple. But if any statement appears to refute “A natural born citizen is born in the country of citizen parents,” be suspicious, because that definition has not changed since 1758. There is even precedent in Calvin's case of 1608, but English law has no fixed constitutional framework, and legal research can turn up a variety of citations to satisfy a claim.