“If it’s so black and white and 0bama meets your definition of natural born citizen, why wouldn’t SCOTUS have taken one of the cases that came to them, ruled that anyone can be President regardless of where he was born and what citizenship his parents held at the time, and be done with?”
Because they made a ruling like that in 1898, and don’t feel a need to repeat themselves...except that WHERE he was born IS important. Had he been born in Kenya, he might not qualify for US citizenship at all.
But if he was born in the USA, then the citizenship of either/both parents is irrelevant, unless they were ambassadors or members of an invading army.
Clearly FALSE, as evidenced by the rulings of U.S. Secretaries of State.
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen ruled in 1883 that Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject transient alien father.
Similarly, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a transient alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Because they made a ruling like that in 1898, and don’t feel a need to repeat themselves...except that WHERE he was born IS important. Had he been born in Kenya, he might not qualify for US citizenship at all.”
The ruling in 1898 (WKA) that seems to be the holy grail for you does not address a person’s eligibility to serve as president. The cases that have come to SCOTUS re: 0bama, are completely different than WKA, but SCOTUS is “evading” them. Why?
Today the more ‘PC’ term is ‘Commonwealth citizen’. But yes, Cruz is legally a British subject.