[jamese777]

I don’t disagree with most of what you have said . I believe that the original intent of the Natural Born citizen clause should be maintained. Both parents must be U.S. citizens . A state (Indiana) does not have the legal right to redefine the qualifications for the office of the President.
I believe obama managed to get into the White House by fraud and deception and the people need to know how this happened. The problem is that everyone is afraid of going against obama . It is considered political sucide. Who is willing to put their career on the line to contest obama.

---

No US Supreme Court decision in US history has ever found that two US citizen parents are required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
The closest the Supreme Court has come is in the opposite direction in US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

The Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision could have been the beginning of clarifying that issue once and for all. Most US Supreme Court decisions work their way up from state courts through the federal system to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States.
In this case though, the Supreme Court of Indiana refused to review the lower court’s decision and it appears that at least for now, the issue stopped there.

I see a whole lot of people going against Obama and not being the least bit afraid to do so. On this eligibility issue alone, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility. Suing Obama is certainly “going against him” in my mind.
But there is a difference between going up against someone and beating them.

[omegadawn]

Congress has defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens
The Supreme court defined it achildren whom parents were U.S. citizens .
In the Eng case she was declared a citizen because both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

What is meant by PARENTS/ CITIZENS? a reasonable person would assume that this means both parents.

Until such time as Congress amends the Constitution to allow one parent/citizen to be defined as natural born, then the original intent should be upheld.
Until such time as a high profile politican puts his career on the line to oppose obama nothing will be done to correct this injustice to the American people.

As for the Indiana case , if another lower court defines Natural born as requiring parents and grandparents to be U.S. citizens , would this suddenly override the Indiana case and Constitution? No court (including the SCOTUS) can override the constitution.