I have. And you're incorrect, you do have to believe that there are 3 or more classes of citizenship. The Constitution identifies two classes, natural born and naturalized. If you accept that then clearly if you aren't one then you're the other. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he's clearly not naturalized.
The Social Security Administration lists three “classes” of citizenship on its paperwork: Citizen born in the U.S.; Citizen born outside the U.S.; Naturalized citizen.
That would imply that there is a difference between the first two. Granted, we cannot know what at first glance. I can’t remember right now if it was regarding military or embassy personnel but a government agency published documentation that states that if you are born outside the U.S. during your parents’ deployment you are a citizen but may or may not be a natural born citizen. (I’m paraphrasing heavily so forgive the lack of quoted material. You know I’m good for it. I’ll provide it shortly.)
So clearly at least two government agencies recognize that there is no clear distinction whether or not a citizen born outside the U.S. is also natural born. A Supreme Court ruling is needed.
I don’t believe that we can say that the SCOTUS doesn’t see the need for a ruling based solely on their refusal to grant cert. in the eligibility cases. Here’s why. The cases were dismissed for lack of standing in the 1ower courts. To grant cert. would also grant standing. Since precedent plays a big role in our courts, the SCOTUS would in effect be setting a new precedent with regard to standing. That would open Pandora’s box. The courts have been careful to strictly ahere to the rules of standing. Agree or disagree with me about those two points?
Please check out Leo Donofrio’s blog regarding native born versus natural born. I believe they are the same, but I could be “misremembering.”
A pleasure, as always, N-S.