Actually they have visited it in a round about way...Kim Wong Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
So as you can see...it doesn´t matter if his father was born on Mars, he is a US citizen at birth because he was born here...the decision by the Supreme Court in 1898 was 6-2
Some folks get “citizen” and “natural born citizen”confused. You seem to be one of them. And to those that say they are the same: then why does it specify, in the constitution, Natural born?
.....So as you can see...it doesn´t matter if his father was born on Mars, he is a US citizen at birth because he was born here...the decision by the Supreme Court in 1898 was 6-2.....
baloney the parents were LAPRs lawfully admitted for permanent residence different from illegal aliens or temporary visitors oh and they only ruled the child was a citizen not natural born:
see section 14
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Nice try. The Fourteenth Amendment is beside the point as far as the language in the main body of the Constitution is concerned. You are apparently trying to obfuscate by referencing language not at issue with regard to the “natural born citizen” requirement. Medved displayed the same willful ignorance the other day, I noticed, and was quite contemptous about it.