[katana]

It usually takes some egregious error on the part of the lower court, such as reversing an established legal principle, for a higher court to make a reversal. The Constitution doesn't really define "Natural Born" but subsequent laws and court decisions beginning in 1790 and up to the present have tended to interpret the phrase to be inclusive of children born to citizens, irrespective of physical location or the foreign laws governing the same.

It's no coincidence that Donald Trump and a few of his supporters threw this issue out to the press like meat to a pack of hounds only when Cruz began to move up in the Iowa polls. It's a distraction from the issues and from Trump's highly mixed political history. But with this decision they may have ironically done Cruz a favor by moving the question to an early resolution. Maybe there's a chance that horse will rise and run again, and y'all can keep up the beating, but she's smelling awfully ripe to me.

[Cboldt]

-- ... subsequent laws and court decisions beginning in 1790 and up to the present have tended to interpret the phrase to be inclusive of children born to citizens, irrespective of physical location ... --

That's false, unless "naturalized" and "natural born" can apply to a single person. There are many court precedents on the subject of citizenship to those born abroad, and NONE of them find that person to be natural born; 100% of them find the person to be naturalized.

The bulk of the academic literature either overlooks these precedents, or cherry picks phrases from them in order to support the desired outcome.

Now, you are the one making the initial contention, and I'll retract my position if you can cite ONE case in support of your contention. Just ONE.