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

To: Rides3

And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark is NOT the legal precedent and Ankney knew it. They only used it to create a justification to punt the plaintiffs arguments as inconclusive. The meat of their dismissal of the case was only by virtue that the governor of Indiana could not be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The Ankeny decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.


116 posted on 05/31/2012 8:32:16 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark.
I strongly suspect that's because Rogers and those like him just copy and paste the scripted defenses they've been handed without reading them. If they have bothered to read the cases they cite, it certainly seems they don't understand them.
118 posted on 05/31/2012 9:01:16 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | 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