In Section B of the Ankeny v Daniels ruling, entitled “Natural Born Citizen” it states: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
The entire ruling can be read at:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb
The “Natural Born Citizen” section of the ruling begins on Page 10. The quotation above is in specific reference to Barack Obama.
Sorry, but a "specifice reference" would contain his name. The part you quoted does NOT contian his name. They COULDN'T say that Obama was a natural-born citizen because they had no legal proof Obama was born in the United States. Read the decision. As I explained to rogers, this is a circular statement. Look at the first part: they says, "Based on the language of the Article II, Section I, Clause 4: ... nothing in that language says persons are NBC if they are born in within the United States "regardless of the citizenship of their parents." And the court admitted by footnote that there is no "guidance" in Wong Kim Ark that makes ANYONE a natural-born citizen "regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
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 ...
All they did was create a reason NOT to accept the plaintiffs' argument AND to say the lower court did not err. That's not the same thing as making a positive declaration that Obama is a natural-born citizen.