[El Gato]

That this does not meet the definition of NBC is an opinion substantiated nowhere in the Constitution, and therefore not a fact until a court so determines it.

So why do they, the courts, seem so darned reluctant to do that, one way or the other?

But it is a fact, a historical one, but just not a legal one, yet.

[tired_old_conservative]

“That this does not meet the definition of NBC is an opinion substantiated nowhere in the Constitution, and therefore not a fact until a court so determines it.

So why do they, the courts, seem so darned reluctant to do that, one way or the other?

But it is a fact, a historical one, but just not a legal one, yet.”

First, courts are not oracles. They're not like King Soloman, where you just show up with some issue for which you want a decision. The issue has to be framed in a legally actionable way. Every court to date has ruled the briefs presented are not, which would lead an impartial observer to conclude that maybe they know what they're talking about. However, one court in Indiana did directly address the question and stated that Obama was a NBC.

Second, it is likely the Supreme Court has passed on the opportunities presented to review this issue because they consider it settled. See the previously mentioned Indiana case, which quoted extensively from a Supreme Court decision that, while not explicitly making an NBC determination, stated a legal and historical basis for why any child born here would be a NBC.