“The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, theres a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen, and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint...
... 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. 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.” The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Except Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen, not a natural born one.
he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
Wong Kim Ark
Even the Judge issuing the decision made the distinction between native and natural born:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.(p666)
Saying he was 'just as much a citizen' as a natural born one doesn't mean he was saying Wong Kim WAS a natural born citizen.
-----
People commonly try to draw parallels between the Ark case and Obama to try to prove he is natural born, but a simple reading of the actual case can prove otherwise.
Wong Kim's parents petitioned to become citizens before Wong's birth, but the Emperor wouldn't release them from their Chinese citizenship. Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to young to confer citizenship and a father here on a temporary student visa.
Wong Kim never claimed to be anything OTHER than a US citizen at birth.
Obama has not one, but TWO possible citizenships, and both are foreign to the United States.
That recent lower court opinion of traitorous democrat Obot loyalist judges is all you have. Not going to cut it, boy. All traitors will swing from trees soon enough.
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" 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?
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 perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC?
That, 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.
nice of you to post a kangaroo court decision that has nothing to do with the price of rice in China...If that’s the best you can do you might as well join Jamese777 over in DU land...