[DiogenesLamp]

Not a single court has ruled differently. You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.

I disagree with this analysis. Till the courts agree with what is factually the truth, it is they who are the losers. That courts can get things completely wrong is obvious with cases such as Wickard v. Filburn and Roe v Wade.

[BigGuy22]

"Till the courts agree with what is factually the truth, it is they who are the losers."
__

If you mean some people will disagree with what a court holds, I think you've got that right. Courts rule on facts as well as law, and they can make mistakes in either regard.

But court decisions are the law until they are overturned. If nothing else, the recent spate of decisions in favor of the jus soli interpretation of natural born citizenship completely demolishes the claim that President Obama should know that his father's lack of U.S. citizenship represents a bar to his eligibility, since he is clearly qualified under the prevailing interpretation of the law. It's possible (though highly unlikely) that a future SCOTUS ruling will overturn Wong Kim Ark, but that would not apply retroactively to elections already held under what is currently regarded as settled law, any more than overturning Roe v. Wade would criminalize abortions performed in the past.