I though it was more specific:
” ... the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
Sounds like they have mutually exclusive definitions of what it means to be a natural born citizen, and it certainly doesn’t conform to the distorted faither view of WKA.
It’s not mutally exclusive if you look at it from the standpoing that the government says there are only two classes of citizenship: native and naturalized. If you’re not naturalized, then you must be native. But just because a statute says you are a citizen at birth (i.e. native and natural born) doesn’t mean you meet the Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS because the FF failed to define natural born in the Constitution itself.
It exactly conforms to Wong, which says it is a constitutional question.
parsy, who says you would to have to ask if you would read the case!