The SCOTUS ruled on two occasions that you must be born in the country to citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Helps to read the actual decisions instead of faither talking points.
For the fiftieth time, no it did not, and you have already had ample evidence presented to you that the court in fact ruled the opposite: that citizen parents are not necessary when the child is born in the USA under US jurisdiction.
Of course, I know you will continue to repeat the falsehood above about two citizen parents being required, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, so I will not bother with you any more.
The SCOTUS ruled on two occasions that you must be born in the country to citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Helps to read the actual decisions instead of faither talking points.
It helps to know what is going on the real world of 21st century jurisprudence rather than relying on birther talking points.
There has NEVER been a ruling by the US Supreme Court in the entire history of the republic on the issue of who qualifies under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution as a natural born citizen.
Current US law uses the term “Citizen-at-birth” to distinquish the two types of post 14th Amendment citzenship, the other being naturalized citizenship.
No distinction in the law has ever been made between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.
“Nationals and US Citizens at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Citizens at birth can be president (hence the 44th president of the United States), naturalized citizens cannot be president.