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 Eligibility is about The Rule of Law.

One key concept in the founding of a free society is that men (kings, queens, emperors, dictators, etc...) should not rule by their whim. The Rule of Law is the concept that no one is above the law. It is fundamental to individual rights and a free society.

America was founded with three separate branches of government to protect the Rule of Law. The most basic level of law in America is the U.S. Constitution. It establishes which rights the government is charged to protect. The Constitution is the written representation of enduring and agreed upon truths, and as such we call it law. The only alternative is the Rule of Man.

We should all remember that the issue of Natural Born Citizenship, as established in The U.S. Constitution and upheld by 3 supreme court cases and Senate Resolution 511, is about The Rule of Law.

Many of us allow ourselves to believe that the Obama eligibility issue is not going to be settled. However, it is a battle worth fighting. If The Rule of Law does not apply to our leaders, if they are above the law, America is over and we are no longer free.

When the Roman Republic fell, Romans did not accept the truth. Historians say that for at least 100 years, many Romans held to the belief that the Republic still lived. After the complete collapse of the Roman Empire a few hundred years later, many Romans were slaughtered by invading hordes as they continued to cling to the belief that Rome was invincible. Without Constitutional Rule of Law, Americans are on the same path and the world will suffer a new dark age.

To accept that we can not or should not fight relentlessly to preserve freedom via The Rule of Law is to condemn future humanity to the Rule of Man. To allow The Constitution to become a worthless piece of paper reveals us as cowards and unfit for freedom. Cowards is not a strong enough word because we patriots know that historically freedom is the exception to the tyrannical rule and we are the people charged with it's care.

Post Script

We face a dishonest media, a corrupt government and a miseducated public. We may not prevail. If generations to come see that we failed to fight when we are so clearly on the correct side, it will discourage them. Some of us are not brave enough to face the task for ourselves but imagine a hopeless future where humanity is little more than a natural resources for those in power. You can see it today in the hopeless eyes of the young who are desperately grasping empty promises from the left.

Patriots do have an advantage. We occupy our historical position as the rebels who fight for freedom. We are "cool." Now we must take control of the message and spread real hope.

Update

Some comments have raised the question of Natural Born Citizenship. This argument always revolves around asking for a direct example of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution or Supreme Court cases. They never reference a Constitutional example or Supreme Court case that equates naturalized citizen, native born citizen, or simple citizenship with Natural Born Citizenship. They are attempting to use the "it depends upon what the definition of 'is' is" argument.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen is exactly as it sounds. A child who is a natural citizen in that they are born of citizen parents. There is no real controversy on the subject. It is the simplest definition possible and is not directly defined because it is common language just as 'is' is.