[SatinDoll]

You are amusing.

“Three different courts, three different cases, in three different states.”

The holding of Minor v. Happersett is precedent, maintaining that a child born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen. It is therefore Federal law.

It does not matter what a bunch of state courts pose. Slavery was upheld by many state courts. In the end we fought a Civil War over the issue.

That is coming soon, too.

[Jeff Winston]

SatinDoll: "The holding of Minor v. Happersett is precedent, maintaining that a child born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen."

Actual Court Ruling: "Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."

You want your opinion to count? Become a judge.

[Jeff Winston]

Incidentally, the same court clearly stated that US v. Wong Kim Ark was the controlling precedent:

Most importantly, 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. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)...

So once again, reality is exactly as I've presented it.

By the way, the judge in the case, Richard E. Gordon, is a Republican appointee.

Yes, I know. Some Republicans are RINOs. But there's no support for your claims from any conservatives of any real stature.