You are utterly twisted!
We all know that the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an elligibility case, and I have not said that it did, but it has included a definition of “Natural Born” as it would apply in such a case, in four cases that I noted, and in each case it was so stated by the author of the majority opinon.
Get it straight or STFU.
Ah. We do seem to have a point of agreement. That's good. The point of agreement is this: "the Court has not ever had the opportunity to rule on an [Presidential] elligibility case."
As for what you actually said, let's refer back to... well, what you actually said:
There is no legitimate contention on what Natural Born means.
Four Supreme court opinions have stated that it means two parents must be citizens and zero opinions have disagreed.
I challenged you to produce the statements, from those four Supreme court opinions, that "it means two parents MUST be citizens [for a child to be a natural born citizen.]"
You've produced no such definitive statements from those four cases, and I can't blame you for not doing so, because they don't exist.
I produced MANY quotes from Wong Kim Ark that very definitely imply that you are (or really, the blogger you got the information from is) most likely wrong about the matter. You haven't directly refuted any of these, either (which is fairly impossible anyway, as you'd be arguing against the United States Supreme Court), but have chosen instead to simply call names.
Wouldn't you say that's a fair summary?