ILNews

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"Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party's nominee for the presidency," wrote Judge Elaine Brown. "The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates."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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT