“My statement as to being naive had to do with the poster’s thinking that the Supreme Court would have no qualms telling the majority of people who voted in the presidential election that their vote does not count because a French writer (French??!!) defined “natural born citizen” in a way that is at odds with what is commonly accepted.”
Actually Swiss but I’ve already been around that mulberry bush today. Ideally the SCOTUS should be above that. They should be completely impartial and impervious to the winds of popular sentiment. I do think it is naive to think they would take such enormous constitutional risks lightly - if that was your point. I was the poster and was merely stating that the law as they read it does not even contemplate a popular vote or even a popular will under Article II.
Thanks for the sane reply.