Replies

Both words, ‘relevant’ and ‘necessary’ have been used in definitions of legal dicta and have the same meaning within the definition.

According to whom?? It's certainly not the case at Duhaime, Nolo, FindLaw, or law.com's online legal dictionaries. None of these use the term relevant to define dictum. Of course, since you didn't bother to substantiate this claim, it fails.

Read the Ankeny v. Daniels case from 2008.

I've read it. It's an embarrassment on several levels. These guys contradicted themselves in giving the plaintiff's argument. They contradicted themselves by acknowledging that Wong Kim Ark was never declared to be a natural born citizen. How does one divine guidance on the meaning of a term that the cited decision NEVER uses in the way this appeals court thinks it was defined?? They even misquote which section of the Constitution uses the term NBC.

As far as their citation of Minor, they invented a bizarre interpretion of the court's definition of natural-born citizen, saying that, "... 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." Had they followed the guidance provided in Wong Kim Ark, they would know this is incorrect. The definition is self-limiting ... born to citizen parents are NBC as DISTINGUISHED from aliens or foreigners. That's pretty clear. If you're not born to citizen parents, you are legally considered an alien or a foreigner who must be naturalized. Wong Kim Ark also noted that the children born of foreign subjects were excluded from the citizen clause in the 14th amendment.

The part of Wong that Ankeny cited as authoritative, they misunderstood completely.

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.

The above citation is originally from Shanks v. Dupont, in an acknowledgment that some persons born IN THE UNITED STATES were considered to be natural-born SUBJECTS and not citizens. To be born in the allegiance of the United States meant that your parents had to adhere to the United States after the revolution and AFTER the Treaty of 1783. It's what made parents citizens so their descendants could be U.S. citizens as well. Unless Wong Kim Ark's parents lived in the United States prior to the Treaty of 1783, they do not fit this criteria.

BTW, technically, Minor was cited in what you like to call a "winning" argument (don't you hate putting your foot in your mouth over and over), except that these judges were simply too stupid to understand what they were citing. That they willfully mischaracterized the plaintiff's arguments speaks volumes about this court's lack of integrity and competency. Second, nowhere in this decision did it declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen, so in effect, it was a toothless decision.

Then one has to decide whether it's funny or simply pathetic when this court characterizes the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate." Vattel and the Law of Nations, which are widely and repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court, is downplayed as just "an eighteenth century treatise."

This court said "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief ..." I'm here to correct the error of the plaintiffs and the Indiana Appeals Court. The definition that Ankeny said was left open, was immediately shut when Justice Gray acknowledged the Minor decision declared the definition of natural-born citizen was NOT defined by the 14th amendment. It's also not defined by English common law, which I've shown.

A native born citizen, a citizen by birth and a citizen at birth are all natural born citizens.

This is plain and simply wrong. You've been shown direct citations from the highest court in the land that prove this is false.

It sounds like you are claiming Marco Rubio is not a nbc. How do you plan on preventing him from running for V.P. if the Republican Party nominates him. Using Minor as your precedent to keep him off the ballot?

Dude, are you not paying attention?? The precedent is NOT just in Minor but also in Wong Kim Ark: all children born in the coutnry to parents who were its citizens. It's not my concern whether Rubio is prevented from running for VP or not. The definition is clear. If he does NOT fit the definition, then he does not fit it. Whether he wants to pull an Obama and ignore the Constitution is everyone's problem, not just mine.

Only for Vattel birthers is Ankeny v. Daniels an embarrassment. It is an excellent example of how the courts have dealt with the nbc issue in the past 100 years. You should realize by now that no court, from lowest state court up to SCOTUS is going to give any credence to 19th century congressional debate when determining the definition of nbc. I agree with Justice Scalia when he stated that the least persuasive argument is that made in a Congressional debate because Congressman will say anything to get their bill passed. The opinion in Ankeny is representative of the state of the law regarding nbc in the USA. I now understand that birthers do not follow the rule of law in their fantasy world, but for conservatives the Constitution and the rule of law are paramount and should not be ignored.

For your information, under the precedent of WKA, Marco Rubio is completely eligible to be President or Vice President. He is probably be on the short list of Republican potential VP candidates. Nobody outside the birther fantasy world believes the definition of nbc is governed by an eighteenth century treatise by a Swiss philosopher. Have fun playing with yourself in birther fantasyland and the adult conservatives will be busy at work getting rid of the monstrosity currently residing in the White House.