“It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.”
__
And, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
But your opinion is of no legal consequence; neither is mine. That’s why the Mississippi memorandum goes to great lengths in Exhibit B to cite all the recent court decisions on the matter. There are twelve of them, and they are unanimous, like the one that says that SCOTUS precedent “fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President” and the one that says that “we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Not a single court has ruled differently. You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.
The problem is the the Supreme Court precedent does NOT fully support that Obama is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution. A citation of dicta from a state appeals court decision is NOT a Supreme Court precedent, especially when the state appeals court admits by footnote there is no Supreme Court precedent that supports their conclusion. The ONLY precedent that court actually cited does NOT support that Obama is a natural-born citizen. As for the “recent court decisions,” they are all over the road in terms of how each arrived at their decisions.
I disagree with this analysis. Till the courts agree with what is factually the truth, it is they who are the losers. That courts can get things completely wrong is obvious with cases such as Wickard v. Filburn and Roe v Wade.