[editor-surveyor]

> “That’s not the rule that was in effect at the time of his birth. The supreme court has changed the definition of “natural born” many many times over the years.”

.
Absolutely false on both counts!

Where do you get this nonsense?

The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.

[mamelukesabre]

The supreme courts sets precedent and interprets the law. Essentially their interpretations ARE the same as law. That’s why it’s so important to pick the right judges.

[jamese777]

Absolutely false on both counts!

Where do you get this nonsense?

The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.

---

The Article 2, Section 1 definition of natural born citizen has never been tested in a Court of law. What did change is the addition of the definer: “born citizen” when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1865. (”All persons born or naturalized...”). There is a considerable body of law since the 14th Amendment which says that there are only two classifications of citizens: born and naturalized and that born citizens can be president while naturalized citizens cannot be president.

I think that it would be great if the Supreme Court would rule (”stare decisis”) on whether there is a differece between a “natural born citizen” under Article 1, Section 2 and a “born citizen” under the 14th Amendment.

The fact that the current Supreme Court has rejected hearing any of eight appeals of Obama eligibility lawsuits leads me to believe that a majority of the current court feels that “born citizens” and “natural born citizens” are identical, but who knows?

[OneWingedShark]

>The Supreme Court does not set nor change definitions of anything.

Then where did the penumbras and emanations that made it illegal for the states to protect their unborn citizens come from if they were not playing with and changing definitions?