Sometimes judges rule on matters that are not legal, for example the merits of evolution and intelligent design. However this is a legal question, so I am interested in what the judge has to say. This seems pertinent:
Then the judge spends four pages quoting from the recent work of Paul Clement & Neal Katyal in the Harvard Law Review, in which the two Constitutional scholars (from different sides of the political aisle) conclude that “as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.”
Frankly, I might prefer a requirement that both parents be American. But neither my preferences, nor anyone else’s, is law. Also, there is the word “generally” which begs the question “what are the exceptions?”
If this gets to the Supreme Court, will it be decided on a “party line” vote? Will Scalia be replaced in time to affect the outcome?
This statement is in error. Congress recognized a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen FATHER is a U.S. citizen from birth. They recognized this by creating a blanket naturalization "at birth."
The rule didn't apply to US citizen Mothers, and it was in fact a "naturalization".