I'll assume that the reasons for your high opinion of Chief Justice Fuller extend beyond this one decision. And I'll also point out that the Ark ruling was a 6 to 2 decision. Chief Justice Fuller may have been more in line with your opinions but 75% of the court was not, and so the definition of a natural born citizen was determined to include those born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of their parents. And if he was born in Hawaii then that would include Obama.
A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Except that in the Elg case only the father was identified as a U.S. citizen. Then mother apparently was not. The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S.
The founders had to grandfather themselves because the knew that when they were born there was no United States so how could they be natural born citizens?
The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen
According to federal law, § 1401 of the U.S. code, if you are born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents then you are a citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen. So if you follow your logic then nobody it a natural born citizen because that status is not defined anywhere. If you follow the Constitution, which identifies only two classes of citizenship, then native born citizen, natural born citizen, and citizen at birth are all synonymous.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
The majority in this case affirmed Ark was ‘at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States’ to wit “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
+++++++++++
So the SCOTUS majority concluded that he and others in like circumstances, with parents having permanent domicile, etc. etc., were ‘citizens at birth’, but carefully not touching the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement of Section 2, Article 1 of the US Constitution.
Fuller dissented, as we may know, and made the ONLY reference to ‘natural born citizen’ in the case as follows:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘naturalborn citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
+++++++++++
Conclusion: the distinctions between statutory ‘citizen at birth’ designation and the ‘natural born citizen’ status required by the US Constitution in their effort to prevent untoward foreign allegience in the office of POTUS - IS STILL NOT SETTLED SCOTUS LAW, despite your conclusion to the contrary Non-Sequitur.