[AmericanVictory]

Yes, indeed, a case in which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue or discussed. As recently as 1963, the Supreme Court hasa affirmed that 14th Amendment citizenship has no effect on the eligibilty requir3ement for the presidency. I see you still cite no common law authrfity for your assdertions. Really, they need to educate you trolls better. It may be that you and your master Soros will destroy our constitutional system which he hates so, but maybe not just yet. If he does it will be a he says, no doubt the omost satisfyng achievmenet of his life, better even than betraying other Jews in 1944. He and the Ci-cago gang seem to be losing the edge on their tool.

[EnderWiggins]

"Yes, indeed, a case in which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue or discussed."

Actually... you are wrong. It absolutely was discussed. I quote again from the decision in Wong Kim Ark:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

I guess you just missed it. That's okay. That's what happens when you only skim a decision rather than actually read it.

"I see you still cite no common law authrfity for your assdertions."

Other than the direct quotation from Blackstone, you mean?