You seem likewise immune to the obvious paradoxes and nonsensical results which accompany such an interpretation.
An objective person would note, as the court did in Minor v Happersett that:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The court is admitting that there *IS* another view, even though it implies that this is a lesser view. (It happens to be the view you are endlessly championing.)
Your side does not even seem to take seriously the notion that there *IS* another view. How about you spend some of your time looking for and analyzing evidence that the Waite Court was correct in Minor, and that there ARE two different views of the law, and both backed up by various Legal Authorities?
It's called "Objectivity."
All I’m doing is reviewing as many as I can of the actual written opinions of 207 original jurisdiction lawsuits in Obama eligibility actions; 90 state and federal appellate level rulings; and 25 petitions for Writs of Certiorari and/or applications for stays, injunctions or extraordinary writs that have been heard in conference at the Supreme Court of the United States. I am attempting to understand the rationale for judges or justices’ rulings of those rulings that are available to be read on the Internet.
There are reasons why a legal argument fails 322 times in a row. I think that it might be a good idea to try to learn something from those losses for the development of different and hopefully more effective legal strategies.
You are confusing me with the judges and justices that have ruled on the issue.
My position is that America likes winners. Every time another civil suit on Obama eligibility goes down to defeat, it strengthens Obama in the mind of the average citizen.
From what I have read in actual rulings, Judges have tended to give short shrift to Minor v. Happersett as having anything to do with presidential eligibility. For example, this is what I mean by “short shrift:”
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
If the judiciary and Congress can’t be influenced, what good are objective philosophical legal debates on blogs?