Do these decisions sound like rulings on “technicalities” to you?
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 Plaintiffs 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
There is no such thing as a “tie” in an eligibility challenge. Either a candidate is ruled eligible and appears on the ballot or they don’t appear due to having been ruled ineligible. Obama was approved for the Kansas ballot and received 440,726 popular votes in Kansas.
Did you NOT read these before posting them?? Don't make this so easy for me. I'll highlight the parts that you posted to prove my point.
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 Plaintiffs 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
ABOVE: Baseless denial of Minor. No legal foundation is given to support the denial or to provide any authority to support the "precedent" it claims to follow.
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers position that Mr. Obama is not a natural born Citizen due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born Citizen regardless of the status of his father. April 10, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
All of these bolded claims hinge on ignoring Supreme Court precedent. Notice, there's no direct citation to any specific case, just a circular logic argument followed by an unsupported denial that ignores the law.
Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a natural born citizen even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.September 6, 2012 http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Wow!! How about that for a specific citation: "other courts" ... but again, ignoring the Supreme Court.
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
More mystery law. The court "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. Evidently this is what a court does in the absence of legal proof. Then it cites and misrepresents Ankney, which did NOT say Obama became a citizen at birth or that he is a natural-born citizen.
Now, where are the cases that are based on specific and demonstrable legal precedent and not on unspecified other courts, considertations absent of legal evidence and that have legal foundations to support any denials or rejections??
The Court system runs in wagon ruts established by previous courts. Not a one of them is interested in bucking prior precedent, and they really don't care what is the truth.
To show the courts the proper degree of respect, all you need to know is "Roe v Wade."