“We have a ruling that a “born citizen” is not a “natural born citizen.” Rogers v Bellei.”
To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try it in your imagination, isn’t it?
http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf
I Only needed to read to line 1 of the second page to discover the judge is a moron. He said: "Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970)."
This statement is factually incorrect. Article II says nothing about congress defining citizenship. The only thing remotely close to this is in Article 1, Section 8 which states:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Congress DOES NOT HAVE the power to redefine constitutional terms. Only an IDIOT would argue that it does. Are you so arguing?
In any case, the Judge (WILLIAM ALSUP)is absolutely wrong on a major point of fact, and therefore I see no point in considering his opinion further. If you start out with a flawed premise as the basis of your argument, your argument is just crap. (Garbage in, Garbage out.) A bit of checking reveals that he was a Clinton Appointee, and that therefore explains why he is an idiot.
This man is, no doubt, representative of your preferred caliber of legal thinkers.