LMAO!!! Your first sentence is way off, the US Constitution has the final say.<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court is the official final authority on what the US Constitution means, and you are a nut. It is right, and you are wrong. Meese and the the Heritage Foundation are right, and you are wrong. Bingham is right, and you are wrong:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
The ten appeals courts that ruled on presidential eligibility, nine on Obama one on McCain, are all right, and you are wrong:
Here are some of them:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, 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.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And, on October 1 2012, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND. And what did the lower court rule? The same thing as Bingham and Meese and Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson all have said, that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.
ARTICLE III, section 2, US Constitution
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.....
As you know we are a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution has full jurisdiction over all branches of the government and this include the USSC.
As I have stated many times, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), this is only a condition that is enjoyed by a citizen.(see 14th amendment)
All you have done by posting those cases has done nothing more than prove that the courts are incompetent and violators of the Constitution.