You might want to reread what was said and by whom.
Reread what. The legal precedents?
Unless you mean the opinion of those who wrote “The Heritage guide to the Constitution” in 2005, I have seen nothing that disputes the definition of “natural born’ citizenship that I described.
It must flow from 2 citizen parents. That was clearly understood at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
There were other cases that touched this subject. Specifically the case of Chester Arthur, who hid the fact that his father was born in Canada and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. If that were not the requirement, why would he have hidden the fact? Why would he have been accused of such?
I directed a multi person response to you, when I should not have.
You were basically agreeing with my concern.
Sorry.