[Hugin]

It's not a precedent. It merely mentions that there is a legal theory about a difference between what constitutes a "natural born citizen" as opposed to "native born" citicens, then states that they don't need to rule on the theory's validity, since it's irrelevent to the issue at hand. Noting that a legal theory exists does not make it precedent.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

It’s not a precedent, eh?

How do you then interpret the SCOTUS ^codified^ “theory” of privacy (that has now become stare decisis?) in the Roe v Wade decision?

You’re a turtle (or, Sgt Schultz) when it comes to the survival of the USA. You provide the lick-spittle dripping from the boots of the Black Pampers in Philadelphia.

Begone.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's not a precedent. It merely mentions that there is a legal theory about a difference between what constitutes a "natural born citizen" as opposed to "native born" citicens, then states that they don't need to rule on the theory's validity, since it's irrelevent to the issue at hand. Noting that a legal theory exists does not make it precedent.

But what about the part where they say "The Constitution does not say who shall be "natural born citizens." ?

Well, thanks to the 14th amendment, (Passed seven years earlier) the constitution certainly said who would be just plain ole citizens. It said anyone born here would be a "citizen."

Seems to me that the court is explicitly saying the 14th amendment does not create "natural citizens."