Actually there has, but not for citizen at birth due to birth in the US. But that's not suprising, the only time it would matter, and thus be anything but dicta, would be in a Presidential or VP eligibility case.
However citizen at birth due to statutes is another matter, such as those born abroad to one or both US citizen parents. They are, for Constitutional purposes, "naturalized at birth". (They do not come under the 14th amendments criteria for example).
Now in dicta, Courts, including the Supreme Court, have favorably citied the "born in the US to parents who are citizens" definition.
Plus in Wong Kim Ark, Binney was quoted in a manner indicating a distinction between "citizen child of an alien" and "natural born child of a citizen". They have the same rights, said Binney, but indicated by his language that there is a distinction. He did NOT say "The child of alien born in the US is a much a "natural born citizen" as the child of a citizen", but rather "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle". The principal being birth in the country.
The 14th amendment merely extended that principal to *all* persons.
Actually there has, but not for citizen at birth due to birth in the US. But that’s not suprising, the only time it would matter, and thus be anything but dicta, would be in a Presidential or VP eligibility case.
However citizen at birth due to statutes is another matter, such as those born abroad to one or both US citizen parents. They are, for Constitutional purposes, “naturalized at birth”. (They do not come under the 14th amendments criteria for example).
Now in dicta, Courts, including the Supreme Court, have favorably citied the “born in the US to parents who are citizens” definition.
Plus in Wong Kim Ark, Binney was quoted in a manner indicating a distinction between “citizen child of an alien” and “natural born child of a citizen”. They have the same rights, said Binney, but indicated by his language that there is a distinction. He did NOT say “The child of alien born in the US is a much a “natural born citizen” as the child of a citizen”, but rather “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”. The principal being birth in the country.
The 14th amendment merely extended that principal to *all* persons.
Thus far no court has ruled that Obama doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen due to one of his parents not being a US citizen.
With specific regard to Obama, those courts that have commented on the issue in their dismissals have used the 14th Amendment’s words “ALL PERSONS...” to include presidential candidates and presidents. There is definitely a constitutional mandate that presidents be “persons!” ;-)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle. Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203.
Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898)
“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”