[tired_old_conservative]

“Natural Born Citizen” does not have the same meaning as “citizen”, given that citizen can include naturalized citizens. It is the proposed distinction between “natural born citizen” and a “born here” citizen that I think is meaningless.

Whether you personally think what the Indiana court did is right or not, they didn't just make it up. There's a pretty straight forward path to arrive at the conclusion they did. I strongly suspect no other court will arrive at a different conclusion.

[plenipotentiary]

“Naturalized citizens” didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was framed. There were only Citizens, and Natural Born Citizen for President. A new term thought necessary by the framers, but not by you as you wrongly consider it to mean the same thing. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/