“The 6-2 decision of the Supreme Court has been precedential for the last 118 years.”
Yes, and you keep denying how that same U.S. Supreme Court explicitly said: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Consequently, “A person” such as Ted Cruz “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Yet, you just keep on dishonestly denying the plain words as if they did not exist like some character right out of the fairy tale story Alice in Wonderland.
“Your disagreement with that decision is noted but the Court’s ruling has not been overturned or invalidated by clarifying legislation or by another Supreme Court decision.”
There you go again with the dishonest false representations of what someone else said in order to put forth a deceitful strawman argument. The simple fact is that you do not even understand the fundamental basics of the word definitions you are using and/or you are falsely pretending you do not understand them to avoid acknowledging you arguments are a bunch of garbage inventions of fiction.
“Anyone who meets the criteria for being a Citizen of the United States at Birth is also a Natural Born Citizen, at least unless and until some court rules otherwise.”
Here you are putting forth that notorious lie time after time in complete defiance of the plain language in the U.S. Supreme Court case: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“Two courts have ruled that way concerning Ted Cruz’s eligibility.”
Neither of those courts can overrule the U.S. Constitution or the several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate their actions, nor do those courts have the power to invalidate Natural Law.
Look, when any court at any level of the judiciary rules the way that you think they should, I’ll be the first to say that I was wrong.
Until that happens I’m going to continue to believe that whoever qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. You and I will have to agree to disagree!
The current law of the land states that a Citizen of the United States At Birth includes: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...” —8 USC 1401
I woulf think that if this was a major issue, Congress would have held a hearing on it to at least look into the possibility of constitutional issues being involved. There has been no such hearing.