Not in the sense that "citizen at birth" is defined under a naturalization statute, passed pursuent to the Congress' power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, while "natural born citizen" is a Constitutional term. It means whatever it meant in 1787. It cannot be changed by statute, any more than the meaning of "solider" or "house" could be in regards to the meaning of the third amendment.
Not in the sense that “citizen at birth” is defined under a naturalization statute, passed pursuent to the Congress’ power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, while “natural born citizen” is a Constitutional term. It means whatever it meant in 1787. It cannot be changed by statute, any more than the meaning of “solider” or “house” could be in regards to the meaning of the third amendment.
+++++++++++++
It could be ‘interpreted’ differently than ever before or changed by activist SCOTUS judges.
It’s interesting what you’re saying about the ‘citizen at birth’ being part of a naturalization statute - so statutory citizenship - would that also apply to John McCain making him ineligible (and I know that many thought affirming McCain’s natural born status, was a trick to affirm BO’s supposed NBC status.)
SCOTUS precedent on this is just too foggy, imho.