Seriously? A 1997 interpretation of a case from 1608?
All I can say is-
Sorry you had to look it up. I did post it later. So what is wrong with a 1997 interpretation? It was certainly before Obama came upon the scene so there is no bias to it plus your opinions are of 2012 so does what you think become irrelevant? What about what Grant said? What about what the other congressmen and senators said with references provided by myself and others on this thread that support the NO PARENT rule for citizenship?
@Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.
Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.
What a coincidence! Her commenting on the very issue we're talking about here.