Ah! ANOTHER well thought out argument by a birther!
Meanwhile, the case cited in the article is found here:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/354/case.html
In it, they use the common law phrase ‘natural born subject’ to explore the rights of “native born citizens of the United States”.
Now, that undercuts the entire argument of the case, since the Supreme Court has already said that NBS is precisely analogous to NBC, so you would have native citizen = NBS = NBC, contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, Jewish law not withstanding...
That's what it looks like to me, too. I certainly can't find anywhere in that case where they elucidate the difference between the two. Any difference would be irrelevant to the question they were deciding, anyway.