Then why did it not say so? Were they afraid of using too much ink by adding the words "Natural born" to the word "Citizen"?
Same thing with Wong Kim Ark. Was it just too much effort to write two more words "natural born" next to the word "citizen"?
You can either believe that they left out the words "natural born" in both the 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision because they were lazy or stupid, or perhaps because they INTENDED THAT THOSE WORDS NOT BE IN THERE!!!!!!
Add to that the Waite Court in Minor v Happersett saying explicitly that "The constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens" all the while discussing the 14th amendment, and perhaps the picture starts to come into focus?
Apparently the 1875 Waite court couldn't find "natural born" in the 14th amendment anywhere. I'm surprised others can.
Article VI, US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article I, Section 8
(Congress shall have the power)...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article II, Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Why does the 14th mention ‘naturalized citizen’ and draws a distinction between them and ‘citizens’?