Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DaveTesla

Doesn’t Obama qualify under #1?

Here’s the current law from the US Code on “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.”
From Title 8 of the current US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

Also, in one of the 72 adjudicated Obama eligibility lawsuits, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided [by the US Supreme Court in their 1898 decision in the case of US v.]Wong Kim Ark, we conclude the persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article 2, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” November 12, 2009
No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.


202 posted on 08/21/2010 9:10:47 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777; DaveTesla

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304853/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2304853/posts?page=36#36


203 posted on 08/21/2010 9:45:41 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson