Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
“Why did Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.””...Citizen Wells

You gotta love Free Republic!

When I first discovered the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal ruling I smelled a rat. I am smelling a much larger rat now.

When I wrote the article yesterday on the GA Obama ballot challenge ruling by Judge Michael Malihi, I based my comments on the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal decision based purely on my reading and analyzing the Indiana “judge’s” ruling. In the article I wrote several times “Was this written by a judge?” There are obvious reasons for my doing so. In one instance, I call the author a liar.

I just came across a Free Republic article posted on January 10, 2012, several weeks before the Judge Michael Malihi ruling. As is often the case at Free Republic, it is interesting and insightful.

From Free Republic January 10, 2012.

“Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?”

“As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“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.”

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.”

Some very interesting comments:

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 14:43:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Mr. Lucky

To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; …
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.

The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a “set-up?””

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 15:15:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Kenny Bunk ((So, you’re telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can’t figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.

This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.

Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.”
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:15:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn’t actually make the same conclusion:
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.
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
They’re claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn’t there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It’s there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It’s not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay’s letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It’s saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can’t be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

… the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
A) This isn’t true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means “to consider at length.” IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here’s another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors? Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That’s all well and good if we’re trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn’t about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can’t seem to get the facts straight:

As to President Obama?s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ….

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, there?s 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.”
Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren’t arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs? arguments come from such sources as, 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.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don’t seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the “ninenteenth century congressional debate” citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” …. how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

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.
A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn’t have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:38:24 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.

Happy FReeping!”

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 18:43:01 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
Your link goes to the appellate review.

Not sure if you have been exposed to the term – dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:

“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”

That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop – basically an politician or government official.

The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:

“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:

(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “

See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:

So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

….unless someone wrote it for him……”

Again, this was posted several weeks before the Judge Malihi ruling.

Also, the last sentence above:

“….unless someone wrote it for him……”

Law expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo has 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.”

I urge you to read the entire article:

Orly Taitz has provided an update on her appeal to Judge Michael Malihi’s ruling as well as some interesting comments:



“This behavior of judge Malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be  set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the Attorney General of Georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge Malihi and possible direct or indirect undue influence by Obama. Decision by Malihi reads, as if it was entirely written by Obama’s personal attorneys Robert Bauer and Judith Corley of Perkins Coie and rubber stamped by Malihi. It is noteworthy, that both Robert Bauer and Judith Corley need to be criminally investigated as well, as both of them were complicit in aiding and abetting Obama  in presenting to the public on April 27, 2011 a computer generated forgery and claiming it to be a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Such assumption by Malihi, that Obama was born in the U.S., without any documentary evidence to that extent from Obama, goes beyond an abuse of judicial disretion, it represents judicial misconduct.”

We clearly have a flawed ruling in GA based on a flawed ruling in IN. It is not uncommon for lower court decisions to be reversed based on errors or misinterpretation of the law. However, the Indiana ruling was either written by a baised or incompetent judge.

Did Chief Judge Margret G. Robb read the ruling?

Judges Crone and May concurred with Judge Elaine B. Brown. Did they read it?

I will contact the Indiana Court of Appeals and find out.


32 responses to “Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

  1. What did you expect from these Indy rubes. Of couse they didn’t write the opinion, their clerk did. This was discussed at the NBC blog after it came out.

    You are correct, highly doubtful any of them read it.

  2. did anyone appeal the indiana decision?
    where did that go ?

  3. Are the law experts giving/sending this background and their expert opinions to the GA SoS before he gives his decision?

  4. “LTC Terry Lakin Denied Kansas Medical License for Challenging Obama’s Eligibility: Same Board Approved License for Doctor that Killed Patient”

    “The board repeatedly refused comment on their decision, but a transcript of Lakin’s shows board members didn’t concern themselves with Lakin’s 18-year spotless medical record.

    “They hammered me for my political views,” said Lakin.”

  5. Comment by Katie at drkatesview:

    “Wow – Big Government posts an article that is filled with nothing by crappola.”

  6. Gordo,
    The comments are well worth reading on this link!! Thanks!

  7. GORDO:

    “They hammered me for my political views,” said Lakin.
    We are in the US….SR and the old PRAVDA is resurrected in our own dictatorspeak media. Compare this treatment with the kid glove treatment of the Muslim psychiatrist terrorist who murdered our own. And that was due to the Obama policy which this good soldier was pointing out to the politically compromised military in order to prevent future inside terrorist attacks. Common sense is out the window.

  8. Looks like the SoS can get advice from the Atty General:

    Blast from the Past: Former Georgia Secretary of State Ruled Against Judge Malihi’s Decision to Remove Candidate from Ballot

    Current AG:,2094,87670814_87670933,00.html

  9. This is long (received in email without link) but goes to show how easily the military can fall lock step to any fiat given from above….even before considering if it takes away legal rights:

    U.S. Army Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling

    Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. It condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.”
    However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. Army were “forbidden” from reading this communication.

    After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the note to be read at Sunday Mass, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication “forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider‘s Michael Dougherty reports.
    U.S. Army officials felt that “the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online, and they asked that it not be read from the pulpit.
    “Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass,” Lopez writes.
    Despite these instructions, some U.S. Army chaplains read it anyway. Business Insider reports:

    More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop.
    Some reasoned that because the letter was not “politically driven,“ and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the ”sanctity of life,” they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze.
    Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential email was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI):

    The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge.

    Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online):

    On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
    The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.
    Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.
    Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
    The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service.

    Update: The decision to forbid U.S. Army chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up.
    In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997).
    The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order “violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et. seq,” according to Free Preach.
    The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional:
    What we have here is the government‘s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165.
    Free Preach writes:
    In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs’ religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government “to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an ‘important component’ of the [plaintiffs’] faiths.” Id. at 161.
    Moreover, the court held that “[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress“ about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith ”appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs’ faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden.” Id.
    The government then argued that the chaplains’ contemplated speech was “not religious” but merely “political.” The court rejected this argument also, holding that “it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not.” Id. at 164.
    Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were “outweighed by the…chaplains’ right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons.” Id. at 162.
    It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added].

    Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. Army have the right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass?

    Update II: The Secretary of the Army has approved the reading of the letter:

    Subject: Important Letter
    Importance: High

    Dear Chaplain,
    After speaking with the Secretary of the Army it has been agreed that this text should be read at all of the Masses next Sunday and made available to the faithful. If you already read it last Sunday, it is not necessary to repeat the reading.
    Thank you and God bless you.
    Fraternally in Christ,
    Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio
    Archbishop for the Military Services

    However, it’s important to note that the language in “this text” has been amended from its original form. The line “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” has been removed entirely.
    This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available.

  10. In moderation again at 8:05. Think it’s due to possibly the length….sorry, didn’t have a link. Help and thanks CW.

  11. “In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:”

    This is the most important section of the introduction to this thread. Yes; Minor followed the ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868). Why is this significant? Because for the first time, all citizens were now clearly entitled to the same privileges and immunities. She filed the initial case in 1872, when she wanted to vote in the first general election following the ratification.

    Minor is not about citizenship; it is about equal protection, privileges; and due process.

    As to the question posed above – “Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open??” – well, the Minor court mentioned, other permutations of parentage could produce a U.S. citizen, whether natural born. But it dropped its contemplation without reaching a conclusion because it didn’t need to reach the issue of any other type of birth which would have produced a citizen implicated in the act of voting BEFORE the 14th Amendment. The Minor court only needed to see whether citizens before the 14th Amendment enjoyed voting as a privilege and immunity of that citizenship; and, having found Minor was such citizen; ruled, they did not.

  12. GORDO | February 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm |

    Comment by Katie at drkatesview:
    Thanks, Gordo. Just to clarify, I’m the original “Katie” that started posting at Citizen Wells back in late ’08. I see we have a new Katie here which makes it confusing. I have an avatar that might help keep the two separate.

    CW, I so appreciate and admire what you do, as always. When you look up ‘tenacity’ or ‘like a dog with a bone’ in the dictionary, I’m sure your picture is there.

    This GA “judge” should lose his license and be put away for life.

  13. When will the round up begin???

    Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
    Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election

  14. Under the licensing rules in KS, conviction of a felony or a class A misdemeanor means, no medical license. Regardless of the political views arguably expressed by the licensing board, or whether expressing these views was appropriate.

  15. jbjd | February 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Under the licensing rules in KS, conviction of a felony or a class A misdemeanor means, no medical license. Regardless of the political views arguably expressed by the licensing board, or whether expressing these views was appropriate.

    If it’s so automatic by law then why have a medical board meet for consideration of something other? And why question or “hear” the one under consideration if it’s a done deal? Sounds more like abuse of the already punished.


    “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.”

  17. observer | February 6, 2012 at 9:04 pm |

    jbjd | February 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Under the licensing rules in KS, conviction of a felony or a class A misdemeanor means, no medical license. Regardless of the political views arguably expressed by the licensing board, or whether expressing these views was appropriate.

    If it’s so automatic by law then why have a medical board meet for consideration of something other? And why question or “hear” the one under consideration if it’s a done deal? Sounds more like abuse of the already punished.
    There would have been no hearing unless he wanted one. Maybe he thought he could convince the board he had been rehabilitated. And he might have; had he been better prepared.

  18. anything on wnd will never fly hasnt yet but some powder puff smoke bombs

  19. Barack Obama tried a new tactic this morning. Instead of blaming George W. Bush he blamed the Founding Fathers for his failures.

  20. In moderation
    Jonah | February 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm |

  21. jbjd, you’re not understanding the full context of Minor. Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment and the court rejected this argument because there were ways to become citizens without the birth provision of the 14th amendment. The most certain way was to be born in the country to citizen parents, which this court exclusively characterized as “natural-born citizens.” The court still reviewed other types and classes of citizenship, but they only characterized ONE set of criteria as natural-born. The court not only rejected that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on Virginia Minor, but on women as a class, which is emphasized in the syllabus (which was quoted verbatim in Ex Parte Lockwood).

    And the question is: Why say ANYTHING about being born to citizen parents if not for how it related to the Constitutional term “natural-born citizen”?? The court said the “direct question” was about a voting for ALL citizens. So why would they choose such a narrow definition and then emphasize that it is sufficient for “everything we have now”??

    Even U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark pays respect to the unanimous Minor decision. They note that it said the 14th amendment did NOT define natural-born citizenship, and when giving the holding in Minor, this court ALSO emphasized Minor was born to citizen parents. Why would they do this when Minor never gave direct facts that she was born to citizen parents??

  22. Couldn’t sleep so I visited WND to check out Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s scheduled news conference. This man surely needs prayer since the DOJ is threatening him. Thanks for the link, Gordo.

    But I also came across this piece:
    States to feds: Take this law and shove it
    “That’s the message the Tenth Amendment Center and The Foundation for a Free Society will be bringing to the year’s biggest event for conservatives with the premiere of the explosive documentary film, “Nullification: The Rightful Remedy.”

    In 1798 Jefferson wrote:
    “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government … and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. … that the government created by this compact [the U.S. Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; … that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; …”

    Then I wondered over to Drudge and noticed the lead story:


    Then finally, also on Drudge:
    FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists

    “We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters,” said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent.

    There’s a mighty big storm brewing!

  23. Interested Bystander

    Good morning CW, Zach and everyone here at CW,

    If I can make a couple of just general observations:


    Why do lawyers present people to testify about a forgery, or about fraud WITHOUT first qualifying them as experts?

    Seems that the GA Judge didn’t even consider the evidence by the “experts” because they weren’t qualified. And it also seems to me that those experts would have been qualified pretty quickly seeing as how there wasn’t an opposition counsel to object. A couple educational and experience questions and shazaam, expert witnesses.

    But really, for this Judge to make his ruling the way he did, and to put in his ruling that simply being born on US soild qualifies you to be President, seems to me to be a bit “elitist”.


    It doesn’t look to me like the GOP can put ANY candidate (except for the man I am supporting, who will remain nameless) on the ballot and get trounced by Obama.

    The FACTS are that Santorum, Newt and Romney all three simply will be Obama “lite”. On every issue that will be brought up in a debate will be Obama saying he wants to do one thing, and the GOP candidate saying he wants to do a little “less” than Obama.

    The Republican Party is no better than the Democrat Party, and in my opinion, BOTH Parties are in on the “deal”.

    Just as an example,

    Remember the continuing resolution bill debate back in Nov and Dec that ended up with the Republicans passing a bill in the House to be ignored by the Senate? The House bill had the Keystone Pipeline attached, and then in the final version the Keystone Pipeline was gone.

    The debt limit debate back last May was the same way. The Republicans had a chance to stand AGAINST more debt, but yet they CAVED and gave Obama another 2.2 TRILLION, and now they’re back to debating ANOTHER debt limit fiasco.

    It really makes me sick.

  24. Good morning IB, et al.

  25. jbjd:
    There would have been no hearing unless he wanted one. Maybe he thought he could convince the board he had been rehabilitated.
    “rehabilitated”? My,my the terms we use in our brave new world! You mean after having been sent to the re-education camp? If it’s medical, and with his great record, what needed to be “rehabilitated” in that category? Oh, you mean as in the history of other countries, he would now bow down before their error and ignorance and submit his own conscience. Chilling indeed! If it’s simply stated in law as you put it originally then he deserved no hearing and would have been simply denied. Leading him to understand that he could even plead his case when there was no chance is, again, hypocritical and cruel….and cowardly. Doesn’t make sense nor does your reasoning about it. And why would he be grilled only on the political questions by a medical board???? That is outside their expertise.

  26. JBJD said
    “Minor is not about citizenship; it is about equal protection, privileges; and due process.”
    Van Dyne did not agree with you, he was an often cited authority on US citizenship.

  27. Page 13

  28. Good Morning CW, et. al.

  29. Van Dyne Citizenship of the USA, cited as recently as 2008 by USG.

  30. observer | February 7, 2012 at 7:47 am |

    There would have been no hearing unless he wanted one. Maybe he thought he could convince the board he had been rehabilitated.
    “rehabilitated”? My,my the terms we use in our brave new world! You mean after having been sent to the re-education camp?
    “Rehabilitated” is the word contained in the law. (I realized when you posed the question as to why a hearing was held, when conviction equals no license; that, again, you hadn’t bothered to look up the law governing these hearings. So, as usual, I did this for you. I even posted the link to the precise section of the law with respect to denying license upon conviction; and the caveat that, this exclusion can be overcome if the applicant establishes he has been “rehabilitated.” But, again, you didn’t read the law before attacking me.

    Thus, you have memorialized for everyone to see, your motive in commenting is not to understand the issues presented here, or to expand our understanding of the issues presented here; or even to appreciate the work of others who contribute to our understanding of the issues.)

  31. The 14th amendment debates have Lyman Trumbull, the co-author, who wrote the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, and he is on record EXPLAINING his amendment to the bill, because others were asking what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant, and HE, the one who WROTE the amendment to the 14th amendment, clearly states:
    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”

    And the Civil Rights Act (also authored by Trumbull), passed by the same men, months earlier, confirms my claims and validates Trumbull’s words, in the debates…
    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
    And the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance further supports my claims…
    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;”

    I mean it’s clear as day that a citizen (natural born or naturalized) must have full allegiance. Are they saying that a person born to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, that comes over must denounce all foreign allegiance, but a child born here to an immigrant with foreign allegiance, is not required to also renounce their foreign allegiance? It makes no sense and my proof and sources makes 100% sense, so why is it ignored and called irrelevant? Yet, when the left say, the 14th amendment grants Obama citizenship, people agree without a single fact?


    (Go to page 112 at the link AND READ)

    Gray talks about how the 14th amendment debates prove what the founders intent was…
    “Language could not express that purpose with more distinctness than does the act of 1866. Any doubt upon the subject, in respect to persons of the Indian race residing in the United States or Territories, and not members of a tribe, will be removed by an examination of the debates, in which many distinguished statesmen and lawyers participated in the Senate of the United States when the act of 1866 was under consideration.”

    He even adds into his opinion quotes from Trumbull during the debate…
    “Of course we cannot declare the wild Indians who do not recognize the government of the United States, who are not subject to our laws, with whom we make treaties, who have their own laws, who have their own regulations, whom we do not intend to interfere with or punish for the commission of crimes one upon the other, to be the subjects of the United States in the sense of being citizens. They must be excepted. The Constitution of the United States excludes them from the enumeration of the population of the United States when it says that Indians not taxed are to be excluded. It has occurred to me that, perhaps, the amendment would meet the views of all gentlemen, which used these constitutional words, and said that all persons born in the United States, excluding Indians not taxed, and not subject to any foreign power, shall be deemed citizens of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 39th Congress, p. 527.”

    Again Gray says “IN HIS OPINION”:
    “An examination of the debates in Congress, pending the consideration of that amendment, will show that there was no purpose, on the part of those who framed it or of those who sustained it by their votes, to abandon the policy inaugurated by the act of 1866, of admitting to national citizenship such Indians as were separated from their tribes, and were residents of one of the States or of one of the Territories, outside of any reservation or territory set apart for the exclusive use and occupancy of Indian tribes.

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”

    AND ONCE AGAIN Justice Gray:
    “A careful examination of all that was said by Senators and Representatives, pending the consideration by Congress of the Fourteenth Amendment, justifies us in saying”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s