So we begin anew.
By distinguishing between the two classes of citizens, there can be no doubt that there is a difference and by understanding why they made the distinction, there is little doubt as to what the difference was, A NBC was, at a minimum, born in the United States.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I note there are no exceptions here. As such the 14th seems to run contrary to the establishment of two distinct citizen classes but in reality it created three classes because simply being born on the dirt belonging to the US in no way enhances security. Native born children of foreign nationals is just as easy to accomplish and much more common then born by happenstance in a foreign country. To add to that, there is plenty of precedent to make the argument that natural born applies to people born outside the jurisdiction to a citizen.
It's no wonder why courts are reluctant to take this on, as it is political (the presidency or vice presidency) and it applies to very, very few of us citizens.
As such, it will not be taken on by SCOTUS.
This should be the end of this argument, but it won't be .......will it.....I think that is just a statement based on the obvious.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
stating it another way adds clarity:
all persons born in the United states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
AND
all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The 14th amendment makes note of two classes of citizens here: citizens born of the soil and citizens created by an act of naturalization or citizens of other than the soil and it says that they are both citizens of the United States But, importantly, nowhere does its language specifically act upon article II, section I, clause 5 by making mention of a Natural Born Citizen which it surely must do if it intends to affect Article II, section I, clause 5.
In fact, the 14th amendment has validated the opinion that a citizen not born of the soil, is not a Natural Born Citizen by specifically calling such a person a citizen as opposed to a Natural Born Citizen, for our founders and the authors of the 14th amendment perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and we can assume that no words adopted into the constitution were either used or omitted without intent or perfect understanding.
By omitting the words Natural Born Citizen, the meaning of which the authors were perfectly familiar with they have acknowledged that a citizen not born in the United states is not a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve as POTUS.
It will no doubt be mentioned that it also calls a Citizen by right of Soil a Citizen. But there is no discrepancy here as a Natural Born Citizen clearly is, by default, a citizen. A citizen, on the other hand, is not by default, a Natural Born Citizen.
It is also worth making note of the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, we know what this means. It refers to full and unencumbered allegiance to the sovereign i.e. the United States. In this way, the children of foreign ambassadors who, through, happenstance, are born on US soil while their parents are acting in an official capacity of a foreign sovereignty, are not held to be citizens of the United states at the time of their birth upon US soil.
So, in summary, article 2, section 1, clause 5 specifically denies the right to be POTUS to any but a Natural Born Citizen and the 14th amendment does not act to amend that.
We are, again, left to the historical records and common law understandings to ascertain what Article II, section I, clause 5 was referring to.
I have already shown that natural born citizenship is derived from the common law understanding and language and that it specifically refers to persons physically born in the country and that the Katyal and Clement paper that Ted Cruz bases his own opinion on misrepresents the common law understanding by using a few ancient and limited statutory references as being indicative of the common law understanding in its entirety.
There is ample evidence throughout United States v. Wong Kim Ark to confirm this and I have stated much of it already. So let us go back further, closer to the time of the adoption of the constitution, closer to a time when common law understandings were better understood by all Americans.
we see clear evidence of this Jus soli basis of natural born citizenship in Justice Curtis's dissenting opinion in the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision whereby he states:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Again, as in United States v. Wong Kim Ark we see the clear truth of the matter. Our founders perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used and had a perfect and specific understanding of what it meant to be a Natural Born Citizen: it was a person born in the country and they, for good reason, intended that none but such a person would be eligible for the office of President and they incorporated that intent into the constitution. No Act of congress can change this. No judicial hearing can change this. No statement by Ted Cruz or his supporters can change this. Only a constitutional amendment can change this.