[Spaulding]

I don't know if you are trying to confuse readers, but nowhere, and in fact in no statute of U.S. law is natural born citizen even mentioned. That is the same tack taken by James Taranto in WSJ online, and is absolutely incorrect. Taranto repeated his assertion without providing any cititation, which makes it clear he is either stubbornly lazy, or a liar. I won't bother with citations since you have provided the statement, in which the term natural born citizen doesn't appear.

That may well have been what you were trying to show, but since you didn't say something like “See! No natural born citizen in this.” I want to make it clear. This no legal argument about this, though there are lots of people who would like to change it. To read the attorney who exposed Taranto's lies go to Leo Donofrio's blog http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[Technical Editor]

I posted the CURRENT applicable statute only to establish that is states clearly that if you’re born in the United States you are a citizen at birth.

Other parts of the statute have changed, yes, but they are not why I posted the statute.

The point is that because “natural born citizen” is never defined, we have to think about what it meant. No reputatable lawyer today believes that two parents are needed for a child born in the U.S.

And the statute itself tells us plainly.

After all, are you going to sit there and tell me that a citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen???? Of course not. That would be absurd. “Natural born” means BORN. Citizen at birth means BORN in the U.S. Citizen at birth = Natural born citizen.

The Supreme Court uses those terms interchangeably.

True, it has never ruled explicitly on the question, but you and I will be long dead before it ever does, if it does.