Ankeny: "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."
Tisdale: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
I knew what Ankeny said from reading it before, and just looked up Tisdale. I don't have time to research the others. But that should be enough to show that courts have, in fact, ruled on the NBC issue.
Only in Minor v. Happersett did the SCOTUS define "natural born citizen"
They didn't actually "define" the term, except insofar as "there is no doubt that tigers are cats" is the definition of "cat."
In Minor v Happersett the Supreme Court said that there was legal doubt as to whether persons born on US soil but not to 2 US citizen parents are “natural born”. And that’s after the 14th Amendment was adopted, so that is an acknowledgment by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was NOT consensus in the legal community regarding whether the 14th Amendment pertains to “natural born” citizenship.
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 parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 (i.e. paragraph)" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
Sure, that could be splitting hairs. The following, however, isn't:
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry (who's father was a visiting student & not perminantly domociled here), they find him NBC anyway?
If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).
That state, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.