Once again I think you are confusing Citizen with Natural Born Citizen.
The Wong VS US case was about citizenship and if he a person was born here, were they a CITIZEN. According to other SCOTUS cases, the “natural born” consists of not being being born as a subject of a foreign power, which Obama was.
I don’t doubt Obama’s citizenship, I doubt his “natural born citizenship”.
There is a gray area here. Neither the courts nor the Constitution has defined natural born vis a vis this situation. There is precedent for a child born here of foreign parents being a citizen and there is precedent for their being two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized.
It’s the leap between the two that has not been made legally. However, public understanding in lieu of a definitive legal ruling is that a child born on American soil to a citizen is natural born. Public understanding and common law do have standing in the judicial process, should these cases go forward.
The 14th amendment has been used to illuminate natural born, but two problems arise; first, it was written regarding former slaves and second, it is a legal morass of bad law and has been challenged repeatedly.
And don’t we all. But there is no way, at least for us on this lively forum, to determine natural born. There is simply no clear cut guideline to that.
We have had others in similar, not identical, circumstances run for president. None were nominated, none elected. (I’m leaving beside CA Arthur—though that may well be precedent.) Point being, there is no law nor precedent for standard of proof of natural born status. Ooops. Guess we will rectify that now, or at least one can hope.
I am truly interested in what transpires Friday. I don’t hope for one outcome or another, I hope that the truth comes out (a real maybe in my cynical moments). I am interested to see what precedent will be set, even if it’s a rejection of Cort’s case. Hmm, Kemosabe, interesting times.