More so than you think. It satisfies an urge to challenge untruths in open debate. It promulgates arguments that may grow with repetition by others. It allows us to hone our skills in responding. I assure you, i've become much better informed for having argued with the "supporters of Barack's legitimacy" in the past.
So you think these courts have failed to “weigh evidence” and have been “unable to have produced a sensible decision.”
Yes. They are "misinterpreted precedence" zombies.
And you think that Hawaii is “a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there.”
Yes, and I have three pieces of evidence to support this conclusion. First of all, it says in Hawaii's own statutes that they will issue a birth certificate to the child of a Hawaiian resident, regardless of where born. Secondly, the Cold Case Posse of Maricopa county Arizona has stated that they have numerous examples of Hawaii having done exactly this, and thirdly, This man (Penbrook Johannson)claims to have a Hawaiian Birth certificate despite being born in Brisbane Australia.
And that ‘Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”’
Either that, or Chief Justice Gray was too stupid to add the words "natural born" to his decision. (And So was John Bingham, Principle Author of the 14th amendment.)
That’s fine! You’re entitled to your opinions. Now, present them in a legally acceptable form, backed up by legally competent evidence, and make your case in a forum that has the legal authority to rule on it.
The courts have no interest in hearing any evidence. They believe in their simpleminded way that they know so much that no one need bother them with any contradictory facts. That leaves the court of public opinion which we are even now arguing before. It is the final court in any case.
Simply making unfounded assertions on a blog isn’t going to accomplish anything.
That is just the point. They are not "unfounded assertions" they are very well documented and logically demonstrable claims regarding the true and correct meaning of Article II and how the current legal system is corrupted by a doctrinaire orthodoxy of ignorance.
“They are not “unfounded assertions” they are very well documented and logically demonstrable claims regarding the true and correct meaning of Article II and how the current legal system is corrupted by a doctrinaire orthodoxy of ignorance.”
__
Well, once more, we are facing what you personally consider to be “very well documented and logically demonstrable claims” and what you see as the “true and correct meaning of Article II,” and you acknowledge that your views are opposed to the holdings of the “current legal system.”
And I am not arguing with you. I am simply pointing out, as I did a bit earlier, that regardless of your opinion that the legal system is corrupt, it is our legal system, and its conclusions are our laws.
Some people are unhappy about that, as you obviously are, but the law is what it is until it is changed. And that means that Barack Obama is, according to our legal system, Constitutionally eligible to be President, your opinions notwithstanding.