COA: Obama, McCain eligible to be president

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than a year after the 2008 presidential election, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama were eligible to run for the office.

Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse pro se filed the suit against Gov. Mitch Daniels, Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, claiming the governor had a duty to determine a person's eligibility to become president because he issues a "certificate of ascertainment," which lists the electors chosen, other candidates, number of votes received, and other information; and because he appoints members of Indiana's electoral college. They argued the governor didn't comply with this duty because Obama and McCain weren't eligible under the federal Constitution's clause that says no U.S. senator currently holding that office shall be appointed elector for any state. They also believed neither candidate was eligible for the office because they weren't "born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America."

The Marion Superior Court granted the governor's motion to dismiss the suit under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).

"Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party's nominee for the presidency," wrote Judge Elaine Brown. "The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates."

The plaintiffs argued because Obama and McCain were U.S. senators on Election Day, they were constitutionally ineligible to be appointed as presidential elector.

"The fact that the names 'Barack Obama' and 'John McCain' are the ones that appeared on the ballot does not change the fact that they were in fact candidates for the presidency, not any of Indiana's electors," she wrote.

The appellate court then used centuries-old caselaw to rule Obama is a "natural born citizen" as required to qualify to be president. Ankeny and Kruse complained that the senators weren't natural born citizens and the governor shouldn't have been able to issue any certificate of ascertainment. The Court of Appeals focused on Obama because the plaintiffs didn't develop a cogent legal argument pertaining to McCain. Ankeny and Kruse claimed because Obama's father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, he is constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the Court of Appeals ruled that people born within the borders of the U.S. are "natural born citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Judge Brown noted in a footnote that nothing in the opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the 50 states is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. She also noted that the 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, also was born of parents with different citizenships; his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father was Irish.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.