[OldDeckHand]

"I don't see how anyone can say that SCOTUS has not definitively ruled on the issue. They weren't trying to say the subjects of either case was natural-born but in the process they did define it. "

Because the Court has only discussed the issue in dicta. Natural-born has never been part of a Supreme Court decision's central holding therefor precedent (and stare decisis) isn't established. Dicta can be used for lower courts and the Supreme Court as persuasive precedent, but not binding precedent. So, they can weight it, but they're not bound by it.

If you want a better, more detailed explanation, an Illinois law professor, and one of the foremost authorities on semantic originalism, Lawrence B. Solum, wrote a piece that appeared in the Michigan Law Review several years ago. It can be found searching google with those parameters.

[TigersEye]

That may be true. I didn't know whether a side issue to a case, that was effectively defined in the process of the case, would be a precedent or not. If, as you say, it is useful for a lower court case then it could be used in such to gain a positive ruling. Which of course 0bummer would appeal to SCOTUS. He would be in deep stuff by the time it got that far.

Now, for someone to figure out how to get standing in any court.