I agree.
As far as I know, no one (Congress or citizen(s)) have challenged Kamala's eligibility - or if it's been challenged, no court has taken the case to my knowledge. If, as so many have asserted, she's ineligible, why hasn't the question been raised in court? Why hasn't the SCOTUS addressed the issue?
There's an old legal idiom that says, "Silence constitutes consent." The SCOTUS silence on this question is deafening.
The SCOTUS already dealt with this issue in the late 1800s. While it was “dicta” rather than a binding ruling, no one has dented it since it was published:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: ‘By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.’...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established...”
Kerchner relies on Vattel, but what he didn’t know at the time (and refuses to admit now) is that Vattel did not use NBC when writing in the French. And it wasn’t until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was approved that a bad translation of Vattel inserted NBC where it didn’t belong.
Kerchner used the bad translation without realizing Vattel never wrote what was in that translation! This is what Vattel wrote:
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
Translations at the time the Constitution was written translated it “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0
Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0
Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0
There are no cases decided by SCOTUS and there are unlikely to be any. The only time "natural born citizenship" really becomes an issue is presidential elections. Standing requires the complainant to show injury particular to himself, not shared by millions of others. Being a voter does not cut it. About the only people who could assert standing would be candidates. No candidate has ever tried it. Complaints have been routinely disposed of by a pre-trial motion to dismiss.