And that would now make two courts that have ruled that Obama was born in the US and is a natural born citizen.
Does this make you happy?
Arguably three state courts have...New York did so in 1844:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not...
...6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
“natural born citizen” has nothing to do with the location of one’s birth. You’re real close, at least you didn’t bring up the Lamaze birth.
Which is rather curious since no legal proof has been presented to the courts to prove that Obama was born in the U.S.
actually, the ruling was that the judge didn’t see the evidence as being compelling. of course, this doesn’t mean that the defense, which never showed up, carried their burden of proof... proof that the candidate was eligible
unless the defendant WAS represented... by the judge
this ruling does not state how he is eligible to be on the ballot
Your removal is very long overdue.