Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress."That is from a concurring opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
-- Your entire argument is founded on the premise that a person who is a naturalized citizen cannot also be "natural born" --
That is correct. A citizen is such either under the constitution, without resort to an Act of Congress, or they are naturalized.
Again, the case law is uniform on this. I do understand that you find your point of view supior to SCOTUS. But you are a kook.
More name calling. That is what Liberals do when they can't find substantive arguments with which to respond.
To the contrary, I have never advocated my views as either conclusive or dispositive of a Supreme Court challenge.
The bottom line is that there is no basis on which anyone can predict the Court's outcome on the issue with any degree of certainty.
The most accurate forecasters of Supreme Court outcomes are the Main Line East Coast media and the Washington DC Constitutional Law bar.
So when you have the New York Times telling you it is time to eliminate the Natural Born requirement; and the Constitutional Law bar lined up on the proposition that a more modern sense of the rule is Citizenship at Birth, you can reasonably surmise that is the probable outcome, depending on the circumstances in which the Court gets the case.
If the case gets there under circumstances in which Cruz has won a landslide victory in the election, it is fairly certain the Court will uphold the election result if they even hear the case.