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.
For the sake of brevity I excerpted just the pertinent paragraphs from judges’ rulings that pertain to the subject of this thread. There are sections of the full orders of each judge devoted to discussions of relevant statutes and cited precedents. Anyone can read the full orders at scribd.com
You have a black belt in parsing language but a ruling stands unless and until it is reversed by a higher court.
There have been 90 state and federal appellate rulings on eligibility challenges and also 26 petitions and applications at SCOTUS. All of the original jurisdiction rulings stand and as I ‘m sure you know, appeals courts rule on possible incorrect application of law and legal procedure.
There’s never been a single ruling of an incorrect application of law; and of course state court rulings cite similar rulings in other states.
American general elections are conducted on a 50 state plus federal district basis. Purpura (NJ), Allen (AZ), Voeltz (FL) and Swensson, et. al. (GA) were challenges to eligibility for STATE ballots.