[edge919]

In one of the very few cases where a real court has spoken to Article II eligibility, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California cited that very case, Rogers v Bellei. Markham Robinson petitioned for a preliminary injunction to remove Panamanian-born John S. McCain III from the ballot. In order to rule, the Court assessed the likelihood Robinson winning on the merits, and cited Rogers v Bellei in the context:

“Article II states that ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.’ Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970).” [Robinson v. Bowen]

Apologies for spoiling your point, but this quote doesn't substantiate its claim. Yes, Rogers v. Bellei recognized that Congress has to power to naturalize, but the second sentence is undermined by the first. Art II talks about natural-born citizen and citizenship at the time of the Constitution. IOW, it's recognizing TWO principles of citizenship that pre-exist the Congress and its power to naturalize. Further, your case says:

... thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen ...

Do you honestly believe that someone can be retroactively rendered a natural-born citizen??? You said this judge wasn't an anti-birther, but logic like you've shown from the case says otherwise.

[BladeBryan]

“Apologies for spoiling your point, but this quote doesn’t substantiate its claim.”

Ah, no. When you decide to overrule the real court, you’re *demonstrating* my point, not spoiling it. My point, in case you missed it: “Quite different from trying it your imagination, isn’t it?”