“Not a single qualified legal authority disagrees with me.”
I suggest that you read Article II of the Constitution and the USSC decision Minor v Happersett. Then post a retraction.
“Rubio is qualified.”
Qualifications are in the eye of the beholder, but that begs the question.....is he eligible? Rubio does not meet eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution.
Despite your denial, the Constitution is still the controlling authority. We are, after all, a nation of laws, not men or personalities. So bring on your political hacks, cowardly judges, or “qualified legal authority.” ( I assume that you are speaking about Nancy Pelosi as she was the “legal authority” that certified Barack Obama as eligible or uh uh ....the DNC nominee.)
You do not know how to read.
The Constitution does NOT mean what you say it means, and the Court case you cite is NOT controlling and does not say what you claim even if it was controlling.
You are wrong, and nobody with any authority or knowledge on these matters agrees with you.
Nobody at all!
I am not seeing how you are reaching the conclusion that you are by using that case...if you review the text, you will see that the Court specifically made no declaration or conclusion as to the definition of "natural born citizen" - specifically stated that the constitution does not specifically define it, mentions that it is a matter of debate as to whether or not natural born could include merely anyone born within a nation's border, and then specifically delcares for the purposes of the case before them it is not necessary for them to reach a conclusion on the matter because it isn't something needed to resolve the issues raised by the case.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
So in this particular case there was no such conclusion made by the Court and in fact it is specifically stated it was not going to make a conclusion on that issue as it was not necessary for establishing the needed findings for the case before them. There are a number of other cases where the Court did go further with it, however.