[Secret Agent Man]

Well that might be true. Either way SCOTUS would have to clarify 1401/1405 w/r/t what ‘natural born’ means, and whether they would apply or not. Neither side is going to roll over. Personally I would wish they would say 1401/1405 doesn’t mean ‘natural born’ and would use the two parent etc etc def but with our SCOTUS the way it is it would be a very scary case. They get to interpret what ‘natural born’ is and it would be a nail-biter.

[Blue Turtle]

..and maybe that’s why he is stocking the SCOTUS with racist lefties.

[MHGinTN]

There are five judges on the SCOTUS whose lives would be very much at risk if the case made it to their purview, because the power at stake if Barry is deposed is enormous.

If the SCOTUS sticks to the historic meaning of natural born citizen, it would be murderous loss for some very powerful people who have vested a lot in their affirmative action figure fraud-in-chief.

The current Axelrod talking point appears to be that those pressing the issue are setting conservatives up to be branded kooks when Barry decides to notice the issue and present a long form BC.

Several SCOTUS cases have addressed citizenship, being very careful to avoid actually defining natural born citizen. The Wang Kim Ark case had the SCOTUS actually using the term native born to define a person born on U.S. soil but not having citizen parents. Obamanoids at FR have been seeking to conflate those two terms as meaning the same thing, but they do not.

I'm convinced that Roberts the pirate was told in no uncertain threats that he woul dnot take up the issue during the election period, that perhaps it would become timely later, if Barry proves unpopular, and riotiung by thuggish obamanoids was not fashionable. Such a thing irks me no end, but there it is. We are no longer living in a Constitutional Republic because the federal oligarchs have chosen to set the Constitutional issue aside in favor of promoting an affirmative action figure fraud who by his own words cannot meet the definition he signed with in the McCain issue addressed on April of 2008.

[John Valentine]

The Supremes have ample evidence of EXACTLY what ‘natural born” means and it is no accident that the statutes don’t even mention the words.

The Supremes don’t have to say that 1401/1405 doesn’t mean “natural born” since the statues never use the term. The term is uniquely confined to the Constitution, and it is to the Framers and their contemporaneous sources to determine the meaning of the term.

And, quite nicely, that meaing is beyond controversy.

[conservativegramma]

Well that might be true. Either way SCOTUS would have to clarify 1401/1405 w/r/t what ‘natural born’ means, and whether they would apply or not.

Its my understanding that they already did. In Minor v. Happersett back in 1874.