There are indications that many people have believed the definition of NBC to require both birth on U.S. soil and two citizen parents.
But I have never seen proof that “natural born” means anything other than “citizen at birth.”
If NBC means “citizen at birth,” that would still mean that eligibility for the Presidency is narrower than eligibility for any other office.
I am far more interested in why Obama proffered a crudely forged “birth certificate.”
I followed your path Arthur. Then, because I had some time when my company failed, I began to read original sources and both Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, lawyers who prepared cases for the Supreme Court.
If “Citizen at birth” were sufficient, any anchor baby would be eligible to the presidency. Our framers were not only remarkably literate (perhaps because they had no television or internet to disctract; when they communicated with letters their communications needed to be concise), but inspired by the specter of death for themselves and probably families should the new nation fail. They said exactly what they meant and the agreement was so complete among ratification congress that there was virtually no discussion.
Ask yourself, if you were designated to judge those in a society whose allegiance could be entrusted to defend his fellow citizens, what would be the most natural eligibility criteria for candidates? Many societies still require that parents approve the mates for their children; requiring parents with sole allegiance to our societal principles is natural. Then, requiring someone born in our society, meaning our sovereign territory, is almost as important. Children grow up with an innate attachment to our culture, which may be why our framers didn't include born and possible raised overseas, although to citizen parents, as natural born citizen. The criteria aren't perfect, but they have a history dating from Aristotle, and are what our framers chose.
The proof of the meaning is found in dozens of Supreme Court cases, culminating in Minor v. Happersett, because even when the definition is cited in a case, unless it is critical to the decision, it does not affect law - “dictum.” I quoted John Bingham’s lecture to the House because being a citizen at birth comes from his 14th Amendment, “a Naturalization Amendment.” The 14th Amendment makes “naturalized” citizens, as it did for Wong Kim Ark, whose parents were aliens.
Someone in this thread noted that these arguments have been made before, and that her/she was looking for something new. That is what propagandists count on. They want citizens to dismiss old ideas assuming their value has been depreciated. But these old ideas are our legal foundation. That is why they must be repeated. Here is the ‘money’ statement from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, (1875):
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
As Chief Justice Waite was explaining, albeit very concisely, “it was never doubted!” As with every definition of terms found in the Constitution, the definitions are found in the “common-law, nomenclature with which are framers were familiar.” And, because it confused me, the reason Justice Waite added "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners", was that the Constitution's ratification was considered urgent. Every state had its own naturalization law, and some made slaves into citizens.
The most urgent citizen for a new nation was the citizen who could be the sovereign - the President and Commander in Chief. Citizenship was left, by Article 1 Section 8, for Congress, which needed "an Uniform Rule for Naturalization. Until then, as far as the Constitution was concerned, you were a natural born citizen or an alien or foreigner. The children born on our soil to citizens naturalized by their states were natural born, and thus most citizens were natural born - and still are.
I agree with you in that the “birth certificate” was the first question that aroused my suspicion. But hiding documents from the public is not an original idea. I won't go off on that tangent, but assume you too have seen major events shaped by concealment of documents. But, in case you haven't followed it, the history uncovered by Leo Donofrio exposing Chester Arthur's concealment, and even burning just before he died, of his Vermont birth certificate, shows the likely subterfuge. Arthur had a journalist friend from his infamous days managing the New York Port Authority. His friend conveniently wrote a presumed expose claiming Chester was born in Canada or perhaps Ireland. That became the focus of the press, but for a variety of reasons, and probably because Chester was replacing the assassinated Garfield, and was already vice president, Arthur was not challenged. Donofrio discovered among some few personal papers Arthur didn't manage to have burned, the immigration papers of Chester's father, dated at Chester's 14th birthday. I suspect that the Obama birth certificate was a clever distraction (I should say that Leo Donofrio made this observation, but it took me a year or so to confirm and agree with him.)
Remember, Obama has never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He was inaugurated by a Chief Justice who certainly knows the law, but didn't preserve and protect the Constitution as both of their oaths required. Obama has always publicly stated his disapproval of the Constitution. I suspect a court would find difficulty prosecuting him for misrepresenting his eligibility. He might say “Both parties decided I was qualified; who was I to argue with them. I have always claimed that the Constitution is out of date, and needs another bill of rights.”