Replies

Kinda figured you were refering to that landmark state of Indiana case, TOC ole' buddy.

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

1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" 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.

Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?

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.” 14

What 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. Haha. Sure it's immaterial.

So, this brilliant "defining" 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 was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?

You apparently consider yourself a Conservative, and yet you support, defend and hold in high praise an activist state court that can't even correctly name the actual Constitutional clause involved AND cite WKA as their reason for finding Barry NBC...even though WKA was found to be a "citizen" (and admitted by the Indiana state court).

I wonder if that state court citing Clause 4 (instead of Clause 5) is kinda like Chief Justice Roberts having to swear in the usurper...twice. An "escape" route perhaps?

“Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?”

Look at the actual Constitution. It assigns numbers to the Sections, not the individual clauses, and the original third clause of Article II is superseded by the 12th amendment. The more discerning text reproductions note that fact. The majority of birthers I've seen cite the NBC requirement as originating in the 4th clause as well.

That's why Arkeny has the following footnote: “The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.”