“The Indiana opnion clearly acknowledges the common understanding of natural born ciizen based on a lot of history, which is born here. I didn't say that was a flat out Supreme Court precedent.”
TOC:
Yes you did. You might want to tone down the bombastic ad hominem broadsides against “birthers” as you have now undermined your own credibility.
You said:
“A court in Indiana has upheld existing Supreme Court precedent that you don't have to have two citizen parents to be an NBC.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2405214/posts?page=294#294
Fine. I will gladly concede the distinction. What so many fail to get, however, is that there is a very clear historical basis in the law, articulated in Ark, for the broadly accepted understanding that NBC = born here. That's why not a single legal scholar of merit nor any sitting member of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, considered it a matter of concern when Barak Obama ran for President and was elected, despite it being a matter of public record that he didn't have a citizen father. And it's as close to certain as anything in human affairs go that no court is going to reopen that issue.
As for credibility among birthers, why would anyone care about that? It's a given that you lose all credibility with them the instant you show the minimal objectivity to acknowledge inconvenient facts they deny.