edge919 wrote: “This court contradicted itself in its decision and made other errors.
The state Supreme Court upheld the decision, unanimously. Did some court find it incorrect or are you just playing make-believe judge?
edge919: “Further, there’s NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen. Nothing.”
Obama? This thread is about Rubio, remember? What the Court wrote is directly relevant here, because it refutes a crank legal theory that some here are saying disqualifies Rubio. Here’s how the theory did before real judges:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, 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.” [Ankeny v. Daniels, Court of Appeals of Indiana, November 12, 2009]
“(14)We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”
If I recall, it wasn't appealed to the state supreme court.
Did some court find it incorrect or are you just playing make-believe judge?
I get it. Instead of rebutting the arguments that were presented, you resort to smug personal comments.
Obama? This thread is about Rubio, remember? What the Court wrote is directly relevant here, because it refutes a crank legal theory that some here are saying disqualifies Rubio.
The only thing that court did with any legal authority was deny a citizen a right to hold the governor of Indiana accoutable for failing to vet presidential candidates. The nonsense in the decision about natural born citizenship is filled with contradictions and declares no one cited in the suit to be a natural born citizen. Therefore it has NO application nor any legal weight to any other candidate.