[AmericanVictory]

I believe it was a lower court that said that in Elk v. Wilkins. In any case, since there also presidential eligibility under the presidential eligibility clause was not at issue in the case it is not valid precedent but gratuitous dicta. An Amendment only amends that which it was intended to amend. Given that there has been a good deal of distortion of the purpose of the 14th Amendment of late it still has not yet been stretched that far.

The matter remains undecided at the SCOTUS level, the closest thing being the opinion by Story writing for a unanimous court in Shanks v. Dupont Story's opinion would not be helpful to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, or, for that matter, Santorum. Cruz will not get the free pass when attacked on this issue that the present occupant of the Oval Office got.

[4Zoltan]

“I believe it was a lower court that said that in Elk v. Wilkins”

I’m not sure to whom or to what you are referring to in this statement. All of the citations are from or about the Wong Kim Ark case.

Lower courts are relying on the Wong Kim Ark decision to rule on presidential eligibility. For example,

“The issue of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Stansfield Maryland Circuit Court in Fair v. Obama

“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” Judge Gordon, Superior Court of Arizona in Allen v. Obama

Any challenges to Rubio or Santorum will be defeated by citing these and other similar lower court rulings.

As for Cruz, while his situation is different, I don’t believe any court will rule against him. And I suspect the SCOTUS will not take up the issue.