This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I figured it had to do with some kind of standing or jurisdiction issue. But when I finally read the decision, I WAS FUMING! WHAT A TOTALLY BOGUS DECISION (IT’S LOOKS LIKE THE OBOTS WROTE THIS DECISION!) So, it looks as though another judge has decided to define natural born citizen, according to the Indiana, Ankeny v. Governor & Wong Kim Ark cases, when they clearly do not DEAL with natural born citizenship. The whole decision contradicts itself, when you actually read the case excerpts he cites and there was a lot of evidence left out and not mentioned in the decision. The court claims Obama is a natural born citizen according to the Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark, just as the Georgia cases did, but if you scroll down and look at the bottom of page 7, and read footnote 14 which is taken from the Ankeny case decision, it clearly states: FOOTNOTE 14 (Ankeny v. Governor) 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 born citizen 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. http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Cite-ankeny%20v.%20governor.pdf So how the hell can this judge pronounce Obama a natural born citizen according to Ankeny & Wong Kim Ark when neither case, ADMITTED BY ANKENY, deals with natural born citizenship?
Leave your comments to the Judges decision... Let me know if you think I should appeal!