Investigation: Indiana Judge Rules Obama Natural Born Citizen - Ankeny v. Governor

While investigating legal issues surrounding the term "Natural Born Citizen," the case Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana popped up. In the Marion, Indiana case Judge David J. Dyer dismissed a challenge to the eligibility to run for president. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal and also proclaimed that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen based upon his birth place.

This goes against long-standing tradition in America. A tradition summarized by Breckinridge Long and published in the Chicago Legal News on 7 December 1916:

"Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."

This common definition has been upheld in several supreme court cases.  We have further detailed the reasoning behind the constitutional requirement for presidency with regard to both Republicans and Democrats.

Judge D.Dyer worked for Democrat Senator Evan Bayh at Bayh, Tabbert & Capehart. Republican Governor Mitch Daniels filed action to dismiss case. The case argued that Gov. Daniels failed to do his duty and should have rejected the Presidential Candidate(s) based upon Natural Born Citizenship.  Judge Dyer Reasoning for dismissal:

"failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they are barred from bringing the action under the legal doctrine of laches, which means the plaintiffs waited too long to assert a time-sensitive claim."

The case was upheld upon appeal by Judge Elaine B. Brown (former elementary school teacher),  Judge Terry A. Crone and Judge ? May of the Indiana Court of Appeals.  (Full text)

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. A motion to dismiss [**4] for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. [...]

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 theUnited 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. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' case.
...(noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss. Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.

14
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. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty -four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural borncitizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478

15
We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the  fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the  only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

16
We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES,GENTLEMAN BOSS THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4  (1975).

During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.

The Indiana Court of Appeals based "natural-born citizen" upon English Common Law's "natural-born subject":

WRONG

This is flawed reasoning because a subject and a citizen are not the same. A citizen is a sovereign where as a subject is not party to decisions of the sovereign, much like a slave or serf.

America is founded on the tenant that all people have rights from God. Only natural-born citizens of the United States of America are entrusted with protecting those rights and enforcing our laws by the citizenry. How can a citizen lawmaker create laws over other sovereign citizens? Because the enforcement of those laws is entrusted to a natural born citizen, a patriot with no other allegiance but to fellow Americans and our Constitution.

When was the last time an American Congressman or President referred to constituents as subjects? Never, because they would no longer be trusted with the duty of creating or enforcing laws in the interest of We The People. In America only partisan judges make such pronouncements.

Except for this report from the Congressional Research Service (April 3, 2009 p.4) which interchanges the terms natural-born subject and natural-born citizen.

Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirement

Background/Summary

Because the term "natural born Citizen" is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time-to-time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.

As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well settled from common law Principles of jus soli ("law of the soil") extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence,23 as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent 'statutory law, that all persons born "in" the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States "at birth.",24 As such, any person physically born "in" the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one's parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a "natural born" citizen eligible to be President of the United States.

This CRS document has muted debate in Congress. Many of our elected congress people and their staffs are ignorant of the difference between the terms. The document (p.7-9) relies upon Charles Gordon, "known as a liberal and someone in favor of a more open, fairer immigration policy,'' according to Maurice A. Roberts, retired chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals at the Justice Department.

Moreover, one cannot base legal matters on foreign laws when John Jay was the man who presented the idea of natural-born citizen to George Washington during the drafting of the Constitution. Direction should be taken from the intent of those Americans who wrote the document. Direction on the meaning of the term natural-born citizen cannot be gained from similar wording in English Common Law of which the founders were expressly revolting against.

Conclusion

The Indiana State Court is wrong. 

Either the Judges involved are incompetent or politically biased.  Citizen Wells News, a "birther" blog goes into excruciating detail on this aspect of the case.

Mario Apuzzo, legal expert and attorney, also dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.

“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”

Obama Lies About Creating 3 Million Jobs: Democrat Policy Since 2007

Once again President Obama and Media Matters have been inundating "popular culture" shows with propaganda that must be corrected. The old saying by the "first television politician" that "a lie repeated enough becomes the truth" has been the core progressive propaganda tactic since the 1930's. The current grand lie is that Obama created 3 million jobs, which we dismanted with raw facts from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We are adding to our previous discussion by stepping back to the larger economic situation behind the Great Recession. This is a subject that the mainstrem media will not touch.  Democrats took over congress in the November 2006 election. Any Keynesian economist will tell you that policy takes about a year to fully impact the economy, so lets look at how the Democrats crashed the economy to win the oval office and "pass the toxic baton to Barack Obama." Let us not forget that Barack Obama was one of the Democrat senators who passed these policies and killed 10.5 million jobs, destroyed housing, crashed the stock market and inflated gasoline and energy prices.

In November 2006, the Democrats swept congress despite a decent economy and progress in Iraq by villifying George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House of Representatives. From January 2007 through January 2011, Democrats controlled every aspect of economic policy in America. Bush was a lame duck and politically powerless.

In January 2007, the price of gasoline averaged $2.11 per gallon in the U.S. On February 7, 2007, the Democrats and the 110th Congress began enacting policies. Upon implementation of Democrat economic and political policy the price of gasoline skyrocketed.

By July 2008, the price of gasoline had reached $4.12 and the economy collapsed.

• The stock market was 12,556.08 in January 2007. It peaked in May 2008 at 13,058.20 and fell to 6,626.94 on March 6, 2009.
• Unadjusted employment peaked in July 2007 (147.315 million) and seasonally adjusted employment peaked in November 2007 (146.595 million).
• Unadjusted employment continued at the same level until August 2008 (145.196 million).
• Housing prices had plateaued in 2005 but the market remained stable until mid 2007 when gas prices began relentlessly reducing disposable income.

After the tea party and Republicans took back the House of Representatives in January 2011, the economy stabilized and improved. At the depths of the recession in January 2010, unadjusted employment fell to 136.809 million.  Unadjusted employment in January 2011 remained down at 137.599 million. This means that Democrats and President Obama can, at best, be credited with the creation of 790 thousand jobs (unadjusted) after destroying nearly 10.5 million jobs (unadjusted) between mid 2007 to January 2010. In January 2012 unadjusted employment improved to 139.944 million. The bulk of jobs (2.3 million) created during the weak Obama recovery occured since Republicans and tea party members have retaken congress and established economic confidence.

So the facts of the matter are as follows:

• Democrats took control of Congress and the Senate in January 2007.
• The Housing Bubble, created by Democrats, began crashing in 2007 with the additional pressure from gasoline and energy prices.
• Democrat policies pushed up gas prices through July 2008.
• Employment peaked in July 2007 and crashed in September 2008.
• The stock market peaked in July 2008 and crashed in September 2008 when it became probable that Democrats would add the White House to their list of control.
• The toxic economy elected Barack Obama who took office in January 2009 and all confidence evaporated.
• February 2009, tea party protests began due to the economic outlook of adding taxes during a recession. This blog, Doo Doo Economics, began appealing to Democrats for rationality. "Raising taxes in a recession is Doo Doo Economics"
• While Democrats held the legistaltive and executive branches, the economy suffered the Great Recession.
• Keynesian economics, which has not worked in 40 years, was used as justification to waste $789 billion in stimulus for "not as shovel ready as we thought" jobs. The short term jobs evaporated by January 2011.
• The national debt grew by about 33% in 3 years as Chicago cronism made 7 of the 10 richest neighborhoods in America adjacent to Washington D.C.
• From 2009 through 2011, Democrat policies failed to improve the toxic economy from the loss of 10.5 million jobs.
• Republicans took back the House of Representatives in November 2010 and the economy began to recover at the new lower production frontier.
• More than two thirds of job recovery has occured since conservatives took back control of one third of federal government economic policy.

Geithner Predicts Obama 2012 Election Loss

DAVOS, SWITZERLAND: US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner predicted that Obama would be a one-term president. During his televised presentation at the World Economic Forum on Friday, Geithner was questioned by Fareed Zakaria of CNN. The Treasury Secretary tried to be political in his statement, but the question was open ended and well formed.

Fareed Zakaria's question, ".. you made clear that you were not going to serve in a second term of the Obama administration. Is that his choice or yours?" Laughter broke the silence of the crowd of economists and political leaders. Geithner smiled knowing the political difficulty of the situation.

One of the my many talents is decoding the code language on the progressive left and in economic circles. Unfortunately for Timothy Geithner, his every word was decoded. I now relate this back to you. First, the raw response, edited for brevity:

"That is an excellent way to pose that question." Geithner's finger points up and his tongue darts out between his lips. His eyes shift to the side and up. The Secretary tries to find a politically acceptable answer, but truth is about to slip out from his lips.

"..if the president asked you to these things you have to do them...When he asked me to stay, and I thought it was the right time to leave, I agreed that I would stay and I would stay to the balance of his term. He accepted that aspiration of mine, and that is were it is going to come out, I think."

Zakaria quickly followed up, "What are you going to do next?"

Geithner: "...feels like a long way away...[edited]...We got a long year of hard work (ahead of us). It is a political moment in the United States and people are skeptical whether we can do anything. But, Our judgement is that we still have a chance, in some of these areas [referring to Obama's financial regulations, health care take over, etc.], to make some progress. And I am going to focus on that as long as I can." His eyes close, lips purse and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hopes that American reporters are too busy with Friday night cocktail parties to understand the context of these words.

Translation for those who do not speak politic or body language:

"I had to stay to the balance of his term and that is what will happen. We have a long year of hard work ahead until the election."

SOURCES:

• The full video will soon be up at CSPAN.
• UK Reuters may also carry the video in full.
• Click images to see source story

Timothy Geithner Resigned

ABC News Blog is reporting that Timothy Geithner is resigned to the fact that he will not return after the election. The ABC report is based upon a Bloomberg Television interview. ABC News Blog reports:

Obama Economic Strategy: Crash It

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner – the sole remaining member of President Obama’s original economic team – said today he expected to leave the administration if Obama wins a second term.

“He’s not going to ask me to stay on, I’m pretty confident,” Geithner, 50, said in an interview with Bloomberg TV in Charlotte, N.C.

“I’m confident he’ll be president. But I’m also confident he’s going to have the privilege of having another secretary of the Treasury.”

Geithner had been thinking about leaving his Treasury post ever since the bruising debt ceiling debate last summer, sources told ABC News, but ultimately chose to remain by Obama’s side through the end of the year.

Geithner’s departure would mark the final step in the changing of the administration’s economic guard, following the exits of National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, Council of Economic Advisers Chairwomsn Christina Romer and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orsazg.

When asked what he might do next, Geithner simply told Bloomberg “something else.”

The secretary will attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this weekend, where the focus will be on keeping the euro zone afloat and staving off a global recession.

Hurricane Irene, More Obama "bad luck"

With the economy teetering and Mr. Obama on vacation the major media outlets need a big story to fit the progressive narrative.  Behold Irene as she drags CNN back into the murky waters of overblown alarmism.

Following 3 days of "preparedness training", CNN has been running with stories of all the possible hurricane based disasters that could occur. The headline has settled upon "The First Evacuation of New York starring Mayor Bloomberg." Other segments on CNN include "Low lying areas will floor and those who stay behind should pray."  "Mandatory evacuations causing traffic jams."  "No help coming for three days."  "Shut down of the New York subways." "Water and power will be gone." "Bridges and tunnels will be closed. www.vaemergency.gov" "The economy will be impacted." "The urgency of the warnings is more intense with Irene."  "The stormsurge will be devistating."  "Historic hurricane."

My prediction is that this hurricane is overblown, if you will pardon the pun.