Minor defined natural born as born on US soil of parents who where citizens at the child’s birth.
The Minor case was “held precedent” in a number of supreme court definitions. Were there any doubt about the significance of this Soro’s Center For American Progress confirmed it by editing some twenty five Supreme Court decisions containing citations to Minor v. Happersett over the Summer of 2008. Cornell Law School did the same, again with oversight of Soro’s Center for Am. Progress’s CIO, Carl Malamud, edited out a whole paragraph of Re: Lockwood, because it cites to Minor has “held” law - precedent. (Obama almost appointed Carl Director of the US Govt Printing Office; there is no telling what might have become of our national archives had that happened).
No court has contested Minor v. Happersett. The weaseling of judges is something to behold. Federal judges are a disgrace. Oaths clearly mean nothing. Even the military is infected, as they showed with the Colonel Lakin hearing, not allowing a decorated officer to present evidence, and sending him to Leavenworth because Obama’s citizenship papers could “be embarrassing.” They even blithely reordered the chain of military command, eliminating the Commander in Chief from responsibility for orders.
Until there is acknowledgment that the Constitution is no longer our foundation Obama’s ineligibility will not be forgotten. Supreme Court cases and the documents of founders and framers are being scrubbed and edited, but there is still paper in some libraries. We can all guess at why - McCain’s entitlement as a former prisoner of war, the need for Rubio so that the crony capitalism which is so essential to the wealth of congressmen (read Schweitzer’s “Throw Them All Out”), since Rubio’s ineligibility will insure that he is owned by those behind the curtain, .... the suppression of Article II Section 1 was deemed necessary. We know that at least twenty five attempts to amend it failed, right up to 2006, three by John Conyers between 2002 and 2007 aimed at Obama, one by Hatch for Schwarzenegger, and four other attempts, not counting the Obama/McCaskill SB 2678, though it needed to be an amendment to have affect (and this writer might have supported SB 2678).
The only uncertainty about Obama’s ineligibility is that there is no law that forces the Supreme Court to abide by precedent. They could make new precedent. But until they do, Obama is not a constitutional president, even if the press and public use that title. As Justice Thomas pointed out, the Court is evading the issue. We are presumably a nation of laws, and not men, though John Adams might judge that we have failed to protect, and thus lost, our constitutional protections.
What can be found on line is no longer valid.
The recent Arizona eligibility case denies your precedent wherein it states:
"Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
I'm no obammy fan, I absolutely detest the bastard, but with all due respect Chief, our efforts can be better spent deposing this guy while not sounding like a far right fringe lunatic.