Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you’re perhaps conflating ‘legal briefs’ with ‘faither blogs.’
I’m afraid that posting an entire legal brief on FreeRepublic would be a bit too much use of bandwidth but you can read the Court’s decision in “Ankeny v Daniels” and see how many times the Justices make reference to information in the brief filed by the Attorney General of Indiana (a conservative Republican, by the way) in defense of Barack Obama.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
And here is the Court’s order denying “Donofrio v Wells” in which the trial judges make reference to the due diligence in confirming Barack Obama’s (and John McCain’s) status as a Natural Born Citizen. The Court makes reference to the brief of the Attorney General of New Jersey and to other cases before the US Supreme Court which verified Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii.
http://www.scribd.com/full/22677941?access_key=key-1xz5n7vg96tywp2ukwsc
If neither of those lawsuits is good enough for you, I’ll be happy to post judgements and references to defense briefs from any of the other 64 Obama eligibility cases for your perusal.
You might also find the following to be of interest:
At least five of the nine justices currently on the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1997). A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.
Justice Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”
Justices Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”
Justice Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable.
Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Justice Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.
Of the current sitting justices, only Justices Alito and Roberts haven’t cited Wong. Justice Alito, however, came from the Third Circuit where the circuit decided the same issue that Sotomayor faced and decided it the same way as Sotomayor and the Supreme Court – Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong.
You said they all specifically believed "statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health," so show one of these briefs. There's no mention in Ankeny of any of these alleged statements. Quit jacking around.
All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don't specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.