And will you give me the cite wherein the supremes define that term? And what ‘deception are we floating? I just want to see his f’in BC, not a COLB. Then if there are still questions, let the supremes sort it out. Or are you blessed with universal knowledge? You sure act it.
I'l start over. The fact that the speicif definition of natural born citizewn is not in the Constitution is why SCOTUS needs to get involved. The fact that the Constitution does not contain a definition of that term requires us to look at the context of the times in which the framers wrote that requirement. I can show you lots of quotes from the framers which will give the context and sense of that term, but those quotes will point to there being a form of citizenship which the framers intended which is not naturalized citizen and not merely just 'born in the country' of any parents from anywhere in the world.
Posters like Non-Sequitur (and reading your obfuscation which I referred to, apparently you too) love to obfuscate the reality by asserting in passive aggressive fashion that there are only two types of citizenship. Which conveniently cancels the intentions of the framers in favor of granting anchor babies an eligibility that defies, that is the obverse, of what the Constitution has stated.
I'm curious: what would you interpret to be the reason if the SCOTUS refuses to address the issue directly (as in remanding to a lower court with stipulation that Berg has standing now that Obama is president -elect) or if the SCOTUS decides to ignore it completely (as in refuses to address the 'natural born citizen' ambiguity and merely does not grant certiori)?