“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?
“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.”
Yes, it did. As the dissent acknowledged:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
The ruling went into great detail on the meaning of NBC. If you cannot see that, then you are probably beyond any help I can give.