The article doesn’t say that, nor the case.
In fact, this bit seem rather interesting:
The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,
“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
You are on my twit list too. That's where I put people that I view as fundamentally dishonest and morally corrupt.
Yes Jewbacca, many are learning about the 1790 “Naturalization Act. Many of those who’d like to keep as many as possible confused don’t mention the footnote in the Congressional Record of the 1790 “Naturalizaton Act”. It was entirely rescinded in 1795 by Madison and Washington. The phrase “natural born citizen” never again appeared in a Congressional Act, and couldn’t, by separation of powers. Its wording may have caused confusion, which is certainly is today. The act didn’t say “is a Natural born Citizen”, it said “considered as” a natural born citizen. Whoever in Congress wrote the Act may have been trying to convey that those born overseas to citizen parents had all the privileges of natural born citizens, even as they were naturalized, the only power granted to Congresss, Article 1 Section 8, “...an Uniform Rule for Naturalization.
Had it not been rescinded Congress would have been allowed to interpret the Constitution, making the Supreme Court an inferior body whose decisions and interpretations could be reversed by acts of Congress.
This entire thread is based upon the assumption that Rogers v. Bellei addresses natural born citizenship. Read it. It only addresses naturalized citizenship. The 14th Amendment doesn’t touch upon, nor mention, natural born citizenship. The author of the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment, Congressman, abolitionist, Judge John Bingham told Congress that natural born citizenship was never doubted: “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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….
Many are understandably confused by the 14th Amendment’s decision to eliminate the paperwork and define circumstances wherein a citizen is defined as naturalized at birth. Confusing as it is, confusion which is being capitalized upon by many with different agendas, Citizens Naturalized at Birth by 8 U.S. Code 1401, are not natural born citizen. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution except by amendment.
Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Nikki Haley are all naturalized citizens. And while I think we should approach the Supreme Court to get the interpretation extended to “Foreign born children of Military Citizens”, the bill by that working name, Senate Bill 2678, failed to pass when it was sponsored by Obama and his campaign co-chair Clair McCaskill in February of 2008. Were I in Congress, I would have supported such a measure, but it never got out of Pat Leany’s Senate Judiciary Committee, so McCain too is a naturalized citizen.
It is not the topic of this thread, but why McCain’s eligibility was being supported by Obama’s campaign committee, by SB 2678, and after it failed to pass, by Senate Resolution 511, in April of 2008 is an extra-credit question.
You really don't know what that actually means?
All it means is that they would enjoy the same equal protection under the law as a natural born citizen.