The Supreme has never interchanged the two - native v. natural born citizens - with the exception after giving background information about where the citizens were born in the US and making note the parents were US citizen. In those cases, they referred to subjects as native born and only after presenting them as natural born citizens. Got it.
Got it. No foreigners. Nothing about native citizen parents, but the prospective President needs to be born in the USA so foreigners won’t try to take over the office that gives orders to the military.
Hello Earth to Ms. Rogers...Earth to Ms. Rogers....
Natives can and do hold allegiances to foreign countries. Natural born citizens do not have that hang up , as they and only they, can legally hold the office of President of the United States.
More to the point, my interpretation has held sway during the nearly 200 years since...
No, incorrect, wrong again, nope, epic fail. This is closer to the point. These Supreme Court cases cite de Vattel's natural born citizen definition which has held sway for 200 year since.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
I’ve refuted this list to you before:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
The Venus doesn’t mention NBC. Shanks and Minor do not use Vattel’s definition. The other 2 I haven’t found, but since your first 3 don’t say what you claim, I’m skeptical.
Actually this is not the case. The early decisions treated "native" and "natural born" as equivalent. But they did so with *both* meaning "born in the country of parents who are citizens". Even after the 14th amendment, which does not use the word "native" or "native born" (or of course "natural born") it's just that the language has morphfed to define "native born" as born in the country, regardless of parental citizenship. But in Vattel, and the Supreme Court cases quoting or paraphrasing his definition, the two terms are joined by and "OR".
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", or the paraphrase from Minor vs Happesett:
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
The two terms meant the same thing, and they did not mean "born in the country" alone).