The term “natural born citizen” is well understood and defined, particularly within the context of the founders time and writings.
Arguing that because its not spelled out with an explicite definition in the Constitution means it has no meaning other than what its interpreted to be today is ludicrous.
A native born citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen, and you and others idiotic claims that the founders of this nation, whos grasp of language was far superior to 99% of people walking around today would use these two terms interchangably is nonsensical and flat out laughable.
Perhaps this simplifies it enough or you:
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Fauxbama is not a natural born citizen, he cannot be. He may or may not be a native born citizen, but that is not remotely the same thing.
“One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.”
***
No act of law “made” me a citizen — from the moment of my birth I *was* a citizen. That is not the same thing as an act of law that “makes” an alien into a citizen, and that is what that phrase means. It means that if one is not BORN a citizen, one cannot ever be a “natural born citizen.” It’s plain English, really. Drop “natural” if you want to, and see the words “born” and “citizen.” If you are “born” a citizen, in other words, a “citizen at birth,” then you are by definition a “born citizen” or “natural born citizen.” See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html.