You said:
If the terms natural born citizen and citizen at birth were intended to mean the same thing, then where is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference, as specifically applied to the Presidency, the only place where it actually matters at all? Can you point me to any of that?
And also ask where it is defined historically as well that they were intended to mean the same thing because they were not. If anyone should disagree then they should point to historic context at the time of the Constitution and show otherwise.
The case that Leo makes is to the original definition of the terms involved at the time.
The case made against his argument is made with references that have no bearing on the original historical difference between the meaning of the term ‘citizen’ (which had different meanings or ways of qualifying at the time) and the term ‘natural born citizen’ (which had a very distinct meaning and only one way of qualifying for at that time).
People simply are either trying to ignore this fact or just are having problems understanding it.
Some might be having problems understanding, but the majority who don't appear to be sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"