You said:
“No it was not. Donofrio blathers on about Vatell and his Laws of Nations and natural law and quotes from senators and what have you. But we aren’t governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that? “
Just because a certain clause of the Constitution lacks a certain degree of precedent before the Court does not make the meaning of the words or the context of thm in the times they were used irrelevant.
You call Leo’s case “blather” but it is not. He is speaking directly to the proper context used when the words were written. There is plenty of precedent that involves this sort of judicial interpretation. It is called orginalism.
That clause also lacks another thing - a definition of the difference between natural born and citizen at birth. As Justice Gray wrote, "The fourteenth amendment of the constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." That's two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president.