Why would they “widen” the qualification? I personally see no historical writings (court, our outside of) that would give them reason to do so.
Of course, it’s all speculation on what they might do in the future. I suppose just about anything is possible.
++++++++++++++
Well, they haven’t exactly defined that phrase, and they’ve hinted it’s outside the purview of certain cases before them. So defacto and in reality based on Obama, by inaction they’ve widened it.
But if the SCOTUS actually rules on this, will they widen ‘natural born citizen’ to mean ‘citizen by birth?’ Right, it’s just speculation, because the SCOTUS has decided to do nothing about it.
An anchor baby is currently determined to be a "citizen by birth." Right?
Now, how did that anchor baby get it's "citizenship?"
By way of a federal law.
In other words, it takes something "unnatural" (no pun intended), as in a law, in order to "give" citizenship to that person.
The whole point of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is to emphasis that the citizenship did NOT arise by way of a law or statue. Therefore, while an anchor baby may indeed be a "citizen" by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, they could not be considered a "Natural Born Citizen", at least in the way the term was described during the time of the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. Again, otherwise the framers would have been intent to adopt Hamilton's suggested requirement.