“I have read most the arguments, which are pure speculation. The Wong case seems to set the precedent for birthright citizenship. The Constitution does not provide an explicit definition of natural born, especially as it applies to the Presidency. No one knows what SCOTUS would decide since the issue has never been raised to that level legally.”
No, but the Constitution does differentiate. The Wong case, IMO, is not pertinent as it pertains to US citizenship. You are correct however that SCOTUS will have to decide. It is all speculation at this point (mine and yours included), the real question ... how will they decide? And furthermoe, will we have an enforceable Constitution after it is over?
It is relevant if you adhere to the concept of jus solis or birthright citizenship, which is incorporated into our laws and adjudicated on a daily basis. Over 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens every year. These children are entitled to full US citizenship and the benefits and responsibilities that entails. They are not naturalized but native born.
Given the fact that Obama has been elected by 67 million people to be President, SCOTUS will be be very circumspect about ruling should it elect to get involved. IMO, it would have to be clearly demonstrated that Obama was born overseas to an alien father married to his mother at the time.