"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. The law cannot make you one thing or the other. Just as being born in a stable will not make you a donkey, being born somewhere will not make you a "natural citizen." If it did, slaves and Indians would have been citizens. Being born as a "natural citizen" is a condition, such as having brown hair. You either have it, or you do not have it.
What YOU refer to is a misunderstanding of the law. Yes, in most people's common misunderstanding (to include most lawyers who were wrongly taught) being born here makes you a citizen, (because of the 14th amendment) but that is not the same thing as being born a "natural citizen."
I know you disagree vehemently but WKA made it so and Ankeny confirmed it. And that is how it will play out through November.
Ankeny is utter crap. I won't even debate Ankeny because it is so ignorantly stupid it doesn't even warrant notice. Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, did not assert that being born here makes you a "natural born citizen", it explicitly stated that being born here (by virtue of the 14th amendment) makes you a "citizen."
Since the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" was well known to the Gray Supreme court, their decision to omit the words "natural born" was intentional, not a mistake. As a result, their ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility requirements.
"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. It cannot be bestowed on anyone for whom it is not already true. A "natural citizen" is one upon whom only ONE NATION can claim their loyalty.
If you have a claim on your loyalty from more than one nation, you are not a "natural" citizen.
Correct. And such a ruling is in perfect keeping with the philosophy of Judicial Restraint. Such was also demonstrated in Minor: "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to resolve those doubts."