“Natural Born Citizen” = Born on US soil. And born of TWO parents who are US citizens. (The parents do not need to be “natural born” citizens themselves, but must be citizens prior to the birth of their child in order for their child to be eligible to be President/Vice President.)
“And this definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is to be found where?”
There are several things mentioned in case law at the link below that goes into great detail as to the intent of our Founding Fathers in using the words “natural born” citizen. This was to pertain ONLY to the office of President/Vice President. Please read below. It is long but contains several examples and is very detailed as to the meaning of “natural born” citizen. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
But where is it defined? In the Consitution? The Constitution mentions two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. There is no reference to a third form of citizenship. In federal law? Again, only two forms are mentioned - citizen at birth and naturalized. Case law? The decision in the Ark case that your site references states, "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that, "...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."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." So if there are only two forms of citizenship then obviously 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' are one and the same.
And I should point out that other court decisions use the terms interchangebly. The Ark and Elg cases use 'citizen at birth' to describe a person born in the U.S. who's parents are not U.S. citizens. In the 1844 case Lynch v. Clarke, the judge wrote: "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situations of his parents, is a natural born citizen." U.S. v Rhodes is an 1866 case which also clearly states only two forms of citizenship, "'Citizens' under our Constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since before the Revolution." Elk v. Wilkins tied the two together in 1884. "The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural born U.S. citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...'"
Case law supports the idea that "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous. Under those circumstances, the idea that there are three classes of citizen cannot be supported.