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?
>> 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.]” <<
.
I have posted them more times than you have posted on FR.
.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Henry Brockholst Livingston wrote:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it
.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
Joseph Story wrote:
“Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.”
.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#162
The Chief Justice wrote:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649
Justice Gray wrote, citing approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
All of these four cases accept the same definition for “Natural Born” citizenship, thus making it unanamous in every case that cites “natural born.”
As I stated previously, there is no legitimate contention on the definition.