Purpura v. Obama, New Jersey (2012): 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.
Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012): Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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.
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
Voeltz v Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
No court has ever ruled that Obama is ineligible or that he is not a natural born citizen, whether Minor v. Happersett has been cited or not.
Thanks for making a dumb point and showing how inconsistent these rulings are since each fails to provide any sort of an actual legal foundation.
Purpura: No court has accepted the challengers position. That's circular logic. It doesn't make any reference to a legal foundation for this claim or the following claim. "The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law." And of course no law is actually cited by the judge, plus we have to ignore that at least 27 justices said there is merit on this subject in the law.
Allen: Arizona is bound by Supreme Court precedent ... except the obvious precedent in Minor ... which the court denies without any legal basis. And speaking of no legal basis: there is none for the court's assumption that Obama would be a natural-born citizen.
Swensson: Doesn't cite the Supreme Court. Cites a state appeals court that never said Obama was a natural-born citizen nor did that court say he was eligible for office. Claims that it "considered" Obama was born in Hawaii despite the absence of ANY legal proof.
Voeltz: Cites the 14th amendment but ignores that both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. Uses circular logic to cite other courts (when in Purpura it was the inverse ... "No court ...").
Again, thanks for showing that none of these cases gives any positive citations to caselaw that specifically defines natural-born citizen while they deny the one case that did and that was affirmed unanimously as setting precedent on Art. II eligibility.