“WKA only concerned whether he was a citizen.”
Read the decision. They argue WKA is a citizen, not just because of the 14th amendment, but because he would have been a natural born subject in old England, and that bit of common law teaches us what natural born citizen meant in the Constitution.
The Indiana decision is obviously binding only on Indiana. However, the LOGIC they use is mainstream, and likely to be repeated anywhere.
Try to get Utah to adopt via the AG or ballot the definition of NBC as requiring 2 citizen parents. It won’t happen. Why? 1) The large majority of lawyers know it would be overturned, and 2) the Utah courts would follow Indiana’s lead.
You obviously are free to give $$ where you think it best spent. Some people would argue the money I’ve given JD Hayworth in AZ is wasted. Oh well. We all have to pick our fights and give our time and money where we believe it is right.
I got involved on birther threads for 2 reasons:
1 - I thought Lakin will have his butt handed to him, and said so. Within minutes, I was attacked as a traitorous troll who hates America. That made it personal.
2 - Reading the cases has been enlightening. I strongly disagree with how the courts have ruled in many areas, but it doesn’t help anyone to ignore what they have ruled. When someone says ‘Everyone KNOWS the Founder’s relied on Vattel’s definition’, they ignore both the facts and the case history - and that is a good way to lose future cases.
Oh, my. Looks like I spoke too soon. Relying upon ober dicta to the exclusion of the actual decision again, I see. The law doesn’t work that way, Mr. Rogers.
“The Indiana decision is obviously binding only on Indiana. However, the LOGIC they use is mainstream, and likely to be repeated anywhere.”
Natural born subject (NBS) is what it is and the WKA court explicitly declined to say what it “teaches us” about what NBC meant to the founders. There is some commonality between NBS and citizen, but there is no parallel between NBC and the common law NBS.
For there to be commonality with the founder's NBC, the common law NBS would have to address what extraordinary qualifications of a subject would be needed to prevent the subject from coming under foreign influence as king.
This is obviously irrelevant to the hereditary selection of British kings, but to the founders this concept of excluding foreign upbringing influence would have clearly made sense of and they actually did cite the issue as a future concern given the horrible consequences that foreign influence of certain kings caused British subjects.
If some FReepers are questioning your sincerity and wondering whether you are part of a DOJ/DIA psyops group it might be because of your refusal to acknowledge repeated postings to you of clear writings from numerous founding fathers regarding exactly why NBS did not equal NBC and why exclusion of foreign influence for the CIC, specifically a foreign father was exactly what they wanted to exclude from NBC.
Flawed rulings are not mainstream. The IN appeals court ruling repeats obviously false claims regarding WKA and makes the false claim that Chester Arthur's deliberate hiding of his likely ineligibility set a precedent even though it was unknown at the time! No competent court will uphold WKA, IMHO. Anyone who continues to defend the IN ruling when he/she has been exposed to its obvious deficiencies and tries to claim it has some kind of value as precedent or influence outside IN also becomes suspect IMO. I sincerely hope that any such suspicions are unwarranted.