You obviously don’t understand common law and precedent.
Your refutation is not on point and summarizes by saying that the legal precedent for the definition of “natural born” is not in Constitutional Law.
LOL. That’s because nobody of any legal merit has brought a case to bear at the Constitutional level. Which means you have to look at your “Birther” religion as not quite meeting the lofty status of your “legal degree” from the bubble gum machine you attained it.
_______________________
The Lynn case indeed, was used as precedent and authoritatively.
“The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[38] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[39]
Because it's not. It's a Natural Law concept and thus falls outside positive , or man-made law...and the Constitution IS man-made law.
That's why the term NATURAL born is used, and the citizenship of your NATURAL parents is the requirement. It is not a citizenship AT birth [jus soli], but a citizenship BY birth [jus sanguinis]
-----
Which means you have to look at your “Birther” religion as not quite meeting the lofty status of your “legal degree” from the bubble gum machine you attained it.
No, all it 'means' is that you've finally begun the ad hominem attacks, signaling that you adhere to a 'living' Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.
------
Look Tin Sing
By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. Just a few short years earlier, however, it was a different story:
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
-----
You post on another thread is highly illuminating. You are apparently such a Rubio fan that the question of his eligibility is inconsequential to you.
Enjoy your 'living document' today.....bowing and scraping before the federal government as it spoon-feeds you its 'interpretations' ensures you can never know HOW it will read tomorrow.