Replies

Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.

Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.
No court, including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Barack Obama is ineligible due to not having two US citizen parents. Another appeal making that very claim, Hollister v Soetoro is being heard in conference at the Supreme Court of the United States today. We should have the Justices’ decision on whether four of them think that this issue raises enough serious constitutional issues that it should be heard by the full Court, on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.” Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry, wrong again....

The formal ruling was this:

AFFIRMED

There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.

The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.

Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....

“blah, blah, blah, blah....

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.

But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.

A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....

“Hoooooosier daddy?!”

It applies here...

now,now jamese777, you know that a couple off state judges can not overturn the Constitution. Also when has any court declared that obama was even born in Hawaii? There is a big difference in obama claiming that he was born in hawaii and actually providing proof?