The birthers are back, and now it’s a Texas Senator who happens to have been born in Calgary, Alberta who’s in their sights. Alberta happens to be in Canada, of course, and even for some commentators on the right, who may not want Ted Cruz to be the nominee of the Republican Party, the birther issue is being used again as a weapon. Of course, there are also those on the left who have said they will launch legal challenges against Cruz as well. And Trump is also playing with the weapon, fondling the handle even as he keeps it in his holster. For now.

The Constitution uses the wording natural-born citizen as its stated requirement for eligibility for the offices of President and Vice President. And no, the Supreme Court has not ruled on what exactly is meant by those three words. Mainly because it has seen no reason to do so, as Senator Ted Cruz has had to clearly explain recently.

It seems that natural-born means born in the United States; or born abroad to one or more US parent. That is, someone entitled to US citizenship at birth. Which Ted Cruz qualifies for, by that opinion and that interpretation.

Will Florida Democrat Alan Grayson actually follow through with a legal challenge? And more importantly, will such a challenge go beyond the lower courts, rather than wither and die under the weight of settled law? Because if it does prosper somehow, there are a few legal minds – like UCLA professor Chin – chomping at the bit to show in court that Senator McCain, for example, having apparently received his US citizenship about a year after his birth by right of a Congressional grant of citizenship in 1937, is not a natural-born citizen. As a means of chastising Congress for bad policy more than anything else.

Legally, and almost certainly, constitutionally, so-called birthers will have a hard time denying Ted Cruz’s eligibility for president. But will they be able to damage his reputation despite that fact? Will suspicions be somehow sown about the geniuses of Senator Cruz’s nativeness? Or will it be so much silly talk?

Perhaps the Supreme Court should rule on the issue once and for all, but their leaving it to the lower courts seems to suggest they’ve long ago made up their collective minds on the issue.