There have been none which rendered a decison on who is natural born. It's never been at issue. Yes, some opinions include such in dicta, but it is only dicta and is not precedential.
You warned me about the danger of one simple cite, yet you use one simple citation to Vattel in the Venus decision. What’s up with that?
That's not a "simple cite". What a simple cite is, is a short quote from an earlier decision, or just a statement of a supposed "principle", not even a quote, and then a citation to that earlier decision. Often when you look at the cited case, you find that the quote is way out of context, doesn't refer to anything very related to the current case, or that the cited case comes to the opposite conclusion from the current one. That's a simple cite.
Since I know you did not read the article I pointed you to, here's a link.
The whole history of judicial approval of gun control is rife with that sort of thing.
You need to go to those "precedent cases" and see what sources they used, or if they pulled it out of their ashes, with a few fancy words thrown in. Law clerks have been known to do that you know.
Another lawsuit bites the dust, again:
“Holliser v Soetoro”-Appeal-Motion to Dismiss Is Affirmed
03/22/2010 PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).