What if they just said it, in the context of another ruling? what if they said it more than once, and in more than one way, where the statement has no effect on the case in hand? Said another way, what if SCOTUS says a citizen at birth, by 8 USC 1401(g) is naturalized, as a matter of law?
I understand that you hold otherwise, but what if your opponent in argument wasn't cboldt, but was SCOTUS. Still laughing?
You can blow me off as a gas-bag if you want (not saying you did, I'm poking fun at myself), but there are deciders out there who will look at Rogers V. Bellei with more legal skill than you or I have, and it literally says "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents ... in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." and "the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent." and "The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place." and so on.
.
“Unless someone can produce naturalization paperwork that made him a citizen later in his life, he’s natural born”
This is the standard for every court that might get involved.
Nice try, no cigar.