Never said anyone did or didn't. I said there's NO EVIDENCE that anyone verified his credentials. Speculating about what people think they know is not the same as checking credentials.
And is the Indiana court incompetent?
Do faithers take Obama's birth myth as gospel?? Hell yes, they're incompetent. I've proved that several times to you. Do you have long-term memory problem??
If so, what evidence do you have to back up your internet blather?
Like downplaying Vattel's Law of Nations as "an eighteenth century treatise," ignoring that it's frequently cited for guidance by the SCOTUS. Then they call quotes from the authors of the 14th amendment, "various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate" as if it has no constructive purpose in divining the intent of the 14th amendment. Then mysteriously they cite Minor's definition of natural born citizen and somehow conclude, "Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." In their footnote to this comment, they say, "Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." This acknowledges that Minor's definition of natural born citizen contemplates that BOTH parents must be citizens. The court exposes its incompetence by leaving off the last part of the Minor passage it quoted which says, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." Well obviously they left this off because it undermines their claim that somehow the issue is left open. Moreover, they undermine their claim of guidance from WKA by footnoting that WKA wasn't declared to be a natural born citizen. At the end of their decision, they say again, "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century." Now how exactly is that different from quoting, "Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896 ..." in supporting their nonsense claim that NBS is somehow equivalent to NBC?? And the biggest tip off of incompetence is the court's insistence on using pejorative political jargon, " As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”
Faithers? Do you also have a name ("Moonies", perhaps) for people who believe that Neil Armstrong took one small step on the moon rather than on a studio set in Arizona?
In explaining why you think the Indiana court incompetent, you prove your own folly.
They ridicule relying on Vattel for NBC because A) it first appeared AFTER the Constitution was written, and B) in multiple rulings, the Supreme Court has said the USA looks to English common law for the meaning of NBC, not Vattel. Thus, they would have been legally insane to suddenly overturn the Supreme Court & reason and accept the idea that Vattel was the source of NBC.
Various citations of the debate on the 14th are NOT legal precedence. Supreme Court rulings ARE. IN a Congressional debate, anything can and will be said to convince others to vote - but that doesn’t determine what is written in the final document nor the legal meaning. If the Supreme Court says it means X, then an appeal to a Congressional debate doesn’t matter - it has already been decided.
Nor is there evidence that what one person said was binding on what Congress intended, since there were other quotes from others in the debate that contradicted it.
You are the one wrong on Minor. The Minor decision specifically refused to address the issue of someone born of alien parents. To take a sentence fragment and ignore the paragraph it is in is gross incompetence, and it is what YOU do. The Indiana Court did what every other court will do, and what the Supreme Court did in WKA, and say Minor left the question open.
And yes, the Courts DO give greater weight to common law that to philosophical books. Vattel was not a book on English or American law, and even admits in the same section that birthers use that his thoughts are not used by all nations everywhere. Yes, ALL COURTS will use Supreme Court rulings as more authoritative than a sentence from Congressional debate or a European book. That isn’t incompetence. Expecting anything else is insanity.
There is a reason no one is contesting the Indiana ruling. 49 states COULD object, and not one does. Think about it.
“I said there’s NO EVIDENCE that anyone verified his credentials. Speculating about what people think they know is not the same as checking credentials.”
It isn’t speculating to note that everyone knew Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen. It was highly publicized by the candidate. Your problem is that it has been accepted law for over 100 years that an alien parent is irrelevant to being a NBC, so no state objected. Nor did any Party, and candidate, any DA, any legislature, etc.