From Wikipediea (mainly to show the courts cases for those who want to do further research; for context this is regarding Obama):
“Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked “There's [sic] some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law.”[67] As a further example, in an unpublished New York decision, Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (Kings Cnty Supreme Ct., April 11, 2012) 35 Misc.3d 1208(A), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614(U), 950 N.Y.S.2d 722 (table), 2012 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 1635, 2012 WL 1205117, the pro se plaintiff challenged Obama’s presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that “natural born citizen” required the president “to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents.” (emphasis added) To which the Court responded, “ Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. .... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil.” [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].”
I can't imagine a court that would want to take on the issue and admit that Chester A Arthur and Barrack Obama were illegitimate presidents. The democrats can't use twisted courts against Cruz without tarnishing (or annihilating) Obummers legacy.
-- I can't imagine a court that would want to take on the issue ... --
I agree with that. If the people want to believe the sun orbits the earth or that people born in one nation are naturally citizens of another, the court is more than happy to step aside and let things roll. They have other things to do.