[edge919]

As we’ve shown several times, Ankeny’s reasoning was flawed. “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.” At the time of the framing of the Constitution, you couldn’t be both and the father’s allegiance determined that of the child. It’s a great argument Ankeny makes that Obama would be considered a natural born subject, but far from a natural born citizen. That’s what you call the Ankeny of defeat.

[jamese777]

As we’ve shown several times, Ankeny’s reasoning was flawed. “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.” At the time of the framing of the Constitution, you couldn’t be both and the father’s allegiance determined that of the child. It’s a great argument Ankeny makes that Obama would be considered a natural born subject, but far from a natural born citizen. That’s what you call the Ankeny of defeat.

---

If the Indiana Court of Appeals reasoning is flawed, I wonder wny the Indiana Supreme Court refused to entertain the case on appeal.
Perhaps it is YOUR reasoning that is flawed. The US Supreme Court has had seven opportunities to take on the subject of Obama’s eligibility. They have rejected them all.
I supppose their reasoning is flawed as well.