[so_real]

It would help if you would actually break down and read the court decision that you're disputing.

Don't put your fallacious words in my mouth. I don't dispute the ruling. I do happen to agree with the opinion of the dissent, which clearly showed legal precedent in Hausding and Greisser for *not* nationally adopting what we know today as "anchor babies" without some form of naturalization. That does not mean I dispute what the ruling states. Unlike you, however, I am not adding into the ruling a bridge from "alien" to POTUS that does not exist. As I've stated before, in 1898 going from "alien" to "citizen" was a tremendous leap, and not without justifiable dissent. Going from "alien" to POTUS was inconceivable, and certainly *was not* the question presented by record to the Court.

[Non-Sequitur]

Unlike you, however, I am not adding into the ruling a bridge from "alien" to POTUS that does not exist.

No, you're adding a third class of citizen which doesn't exist. As Justice Gray pointed out in his decision the law recognizes two classes of citizenship - citizen at birt or naturalized citizen. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he's a citizen at birth, AKA natural born citizen, and then is eligible to be president. It's all there in the decision itself.

As I've stated before, in 1898 going from "alien" to "citizen" was a tremendous leap, and not without justifiable dissent.

Dissent all you want but that doesn't change the decision of the court as expressed in the majority opinion.

Going from "alien" to POTUS was inconceivable, and certainly *was not* the question presented by record to the Court.

The question was what constitutes a natural born citizen, AKA citizen at birth. And the court answered that.