[El Gato]

There is no case law determining the meaning of the term in the Constitution, apparently because that was deemed unnecessary, due to the meaning being evident in the writing.

I'm sure the founders knew what they meant, and that even moderately well read members of the public knew as well.

There is no case law, because there haven't been any cases. Remember we are talking about the meaning of a Constitutional term, "natural born citizen", which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 and nowhere else in the Constitution including it's various amendments. Any "case" construing that meaning, would by necessity involve the candidacy or election of a person whose status as a "natural born citizen" was questioned. We now have such a controversy. Now if we can just get a court rule on the issue and the evidence, even if it needs to order it produced, rather than on issues of "standing".

[RegulatorCountry]

Thanks for the reminder, but you’re preaching to the choir, lol.

Remember, I’m the “kook” who insisted that the Constitution alone determined natural born citizenship, with the Congress enumerated to naturalization only, to the shrill dismay of the good gentleman from Kansas with whom you also had a somewhat less bombastic exchange, last week.

If that makes me a “kook,” I guess I’m still a kook, since that’s the way our Constitution works, and that’s the way the power enumerated to Congress works.

I’ve been trying, with limited success, to drive home the point that the term is not a mystery, that there has been no automatic need for statutory law to define it, and that in fact statutory law cannot define it. Natural born citizen being a “term of art,” “evident in the writing,” and etcetera.