You joined yesterday to post this?
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.
“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.
The first thing to look at is that binding precence of a court ruling is not in and of itself a law. So unless a law or statute is made to define the term, all we will have is a court interpretation of the clause. There is nothing definitive.
Your link goes to the appellate review.
Not sure if you have been exposed to the term - dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:
“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”
That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop - basically an politician or government official.
The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:
“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
...
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “
See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775
So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.
....unless someone wrote it for him......
Thanks for all the posts everyone. They have been most helpful.
Or was the case appealed and the high court refused to hear the case?
If Obama is a natural born Citizen of the United States by merely being born in-country does that make his senior adviser - Valerie Jarrett - a natural born Citizen of Iran since that is where she was born?
What is the difference?
If so, do we have a natural born citizen of an apparent enemy advising our President?
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/valerie-jarrett
http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/04/03/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-valerie-jarrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086135/posts
Interesting closing comment in last link above:
“What makes one Iranian?
Born in Iran ? No”
OK - apply that to ‘What makes one American?’. Same thing. Born in America is not being American.
And the following:
“Being born from American parents in Iran and spending a few yrs in American school and mingling with other American kids does not make one Iranian.
Many foreigners, many Japanese, Korean and other foreign staff were in Iran with their family and children born in Iran .. they no Iranian.
Being Iranian means having absorbed Iranian civilization and adapted Iranian mindset.
She no Iranian at all .. Zero Iranian.”
Using this clear logic we could say the same applies to a certain someone and their claim to being ‘American’.