I just explained that these courts ... and there have only been a couple ... have gone by completely different jsutifications. One says Minor proves the NBC definition is outside the Constitution (without actually acknowledging what that is) while another says they arrived at a conclusion from Wong Kim Ark that wasn't actually used as a legal precedent in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor, except that they mistakenly claimed that it wan't a comprehensive definition, which is completely false.
There has simple been not the slightest indication of a single judge agreeing with the "heritage-based" (two citizen parent) theory of natural born citizenship.
This would mean something if they could agree on a reason NOT to agree with the definition in Minor. And this is wrong, because the Ankeny court did acknowledge this precedent from Minor. They argued that Wong Kim Ark provided guidance for an explanded definition of NBC, except they had to admit that Wong Kim Ark provided no legal basis for this conclusion. It was simply a feint to try to ignore the issue.
Notice that the first decision in this series, Ankeny v. Daniels, was issued (unanimously, of course) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
A three-justice panel in a state court doesn't outweigh 18 Supreme Court justices. Besides, the Ankeny decision was not on the basis of natural-born citizenship. They only created a "conclusion" of what NBC might mean in order to justify their real decision, that being that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true. At the time, the plaintiffs did NOT rely on Minor for their definition of NBC. They should have. The Indiana Supreme Court simply allowed that the governor couldn't be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates. That's the only thing the Ankeny case decided.
You keep telling us why you think the court decisions are wrong. That’s very nice, but you need to convince judges of that, and so far you’ve accomplished absolutely zero in that regard. I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.
All of your arguments have been tried at one point or another, and they have all failed. No judge has shown the slightest sympathy to any of those arguments.
So, as I’ve said, you can continue to claim that your understanding of Supreme Court precedent is superior to that of the wide variety of jurists who have flatly ruled against you, but it just comes across as a lot of posturing. Every reputable authority so far has considered this to be a matter of settled law.