“four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.”
The four previous times, the Supreme Court was deciding SOME OTHER QUESTION.
You have to first identify what the “question(s) presented” are that the court is deciding.
NOTHING ELSE has any meaning.
Only the question being decided counts.
The court case has no relevance to any other question.
However, the Supreme Court has never said anyone is NOT a natural born citizen because of XYZ.
This is the brain damage of the eligibility crusaders.
When the Supreme Court says that THIS particular person IS a natural born citizen...
... that does NOT mean that others are not.
A child born on US soil to US citizen parents clearly is a natural born citizen.
But nowhere have the courts ever said that someone is NOT a natural born citizen under other circumstances.
You simply refuse to engage in simple logic.
If my Nissan Altima is a car.
That does NOT mean your vehicle is NOT a car because it is not a Nissan Altima.
My Nissan Altima is a car.
Someone else’s Corvette is ALSO a car.
Let’s try it like this:
Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois and he is a natural born citizen.
So — according to your misreading of the Supreme Court cases —
someone born in Florida is NOT a natural born citizen because (you think) * O N L Y * people born in Illinois are natural born citizens.
That is your logic.
One case says ‘obviously this person is a natural born citizen.’
You erroneously think that that EXCLUDES other people under different circumstances.
So....
A child born on US soil is a natural born citizen.
AND ALSO a child born in Canada to a US parent is a natural born citizen.
They are * B O T H * natural born citizens, though born under different circumstances.
There is some of the brain damage:
NONE of the court precedents have EVER decided that someone is NOT a natural born citizen.
What does “touched on the issue” mean? It means in relation to another matter but included. I said touched on the issue. I also said the Supreme Court has been sidestepping taking the issue of NBC on.
I deal in the facts. The facts are that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen issue. Most people erroneously believe it does. That was not the intent and the words natural born citizen do not appear in the 14th amendment. Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate enforcement of the the 14th amendment but not the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility which is separate and apart from the 14th amendment.
Up until the 2008 presidential election where both parties wanted to run a candidate with eligibility issues it was implicitly understood that the President had to be born in the US of two US parents which is why the only President elected until Obama who did not meet that requirement was Chester A. Arthur. He managed to hide the fact that his father who was from Ireland was not naturalized at the time of Arthur’s birth. Otherwise he would not have been let on the ballot.
The Congress is not going to decide the issue of the definition of NBC. That is for the Supreme Court.