[Uncle Sham]

"In order to decide which of us is correct, The SCOTUS would have to accept an appeal, or let stand the verdict of a lower court. In the specific instance of defining "natural born Citizen" in regard to the candidates now under discussion, they have done neither. "

Minor versus Happersett is already precedent - Born on soil to Two citizen parents. This either is or is not the condition of the President Elect.

[Kenny Bunk]

Minor versus Happersett

Why miss the point? Neither adversary in this or the myriad other cases cited on FR was a Presidential candidate.

Extrapolation from these cases certainly makes an interesting intellectual exercise, the wildly differing conclusions of which neither can bind nor guide any one. The SCOTUS has been asked to interpret Art.II specifically in regard to eligibility for the office of President.

They have, by their own admission, dodged the issue. That's all.

[Sherman Logan]

Minor versus Happersett is already precedent - Born on soil to Two citizen parents.

The decision said such persons were indisputably NBC. It also said there had been dispute over whether other definitions were also valid.

There are three possible qualifications for NBC status, X. citizenship of mother, Y. citizenship of father, Z. place of birth.

M v H said an XYZ person qualified as NBC without dispute. Obama is XZ. Cruz is X only. The Court did not rule at all on whether such lesser criteria also qualify.