“A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.” You are correct as far as it goes.
But let’s go further.
The Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, simply declared Mr. Wong a ‘Citizen at birth’ as does 14A §1.
Further still, statutory construction tells us a general clause (i.e. 14A §1 Citizens at birth clause) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural-born citizen — Art. II, §1, Cl. 5). Until Congress specifically states via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect. That is to say while all Art. II, §1, Cl. 5 natural citizens at birth are citizens by natural right, 14A §1 Citizens at Birth are statutory citizens at birth via the state’s plenary power.
Further still, statutory construction tells us a general clause (i.e. 14A §1 Citizens at birth clause) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural-born citizen — Art. II, §1, Cl. 5).
The Constitution is not a statute law.
Until Congress specifically states via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect.
The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret what the Constitution says, and the Congress is bound by that interpretation.
The Legislative Branch has no authority to tell the Judicial Branch how to interpret the Constitution. When Congress passes a law repugnant to the interpretation given by the Judicial Branch, the courts strike down the Legislative act as unconstitutional.