Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
"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."
Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama's eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn't the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.
You joined yesterday to post this?
One has to join sometime.
Smells funny to me ...
I don’t know, sounds like a good question to me. I don’t know the answer either.
Cindie
Maybe because the plaintifs were representing themselves and there was nothing to actually appeal?
This decision says people meeting these criteria are NBC.
It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC. It says there have been doubts expressed. It does not say whether those doubts are correct.
Seems like a fair question.
This isn’t OE’s first post. OE explained on another thread why he/she is here, and the reason is a good one [ties into the screenname, in case you’re curious].
Welcome, Obama Exposer; it’s a privilege to make your acquaintance.
Well, it isn't all that bad a post for a newbie! It's also a damn good question. Repeat "Indiana Supreme Court" fast enough and it starts to smell like Kangaroo.
Why wasn't that appealed to the SCOTUS? Perfect oppo for the black-robed bumkissers to start earning their pay.
Excellent points, KB. I’ve been reading your posts on various threads lately, and I must say you’re on a tear. Your analysis is 99.9 percent of the time spot on [imho], and the way you express it makes it fun to read. A twofer!
Thanks.
The case was brought by two plaintiffs who thought they didn't need an attorney; turns out they did.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.
The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a "set-up?"
Thank you. Now we have to figure out exactly who they were. Getting smelly.
At a hearing last month, attorneys representing Gov. Mitch Daniels asked Judge David Dreyer to dismiss the lawsuit. Filed in December, it is one of dozens across the country that have challenged Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his status as a “natural born citizen.” All have been unsuccessful.
From Here
-{looking for precedent}-
Precedent, a method whereby an idiot can amend the Constitution, and the other idiots happily follow along.
Today some old men are going to decide if there any longer exists a modicum of decency in public. My best guess is no, they will give up.
San Francisco allows public nudity with slight restriction in resturants for sanitary reasons. However they have saved the goldfish from a life in a bowl.
But I have developed a bias against the sitting SCOTUS. I feel they have miserably failed us all.
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.
This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle ... failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.
Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.
I was just going to add quickly that I don’t think the plaintiffs understood the importance of the Minor decision at the time they filed this case. They were relying too much on Vattel and on original intent from the authors of the 14th amendment. The Hoosier Hillbilly appeals court downplayed the former as if it were a random treatise on citizenship and the latter as imprecise references to 19th century Congressional debates. The whole decision is a very bad joke.
Thank you for the welcome Fantasywriter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.