There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem.
To your point, however, there is only one group of citizens who are unquestionably and without doubt “natural born citizens” - those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No law is necessary to establish their citizenship. No interpretation of law is necessary to clarify their citizenship status. No legal arguments can be made against their citizenship.
About all other groups, legal arguments can be made for and against citizenship. Until and unless the SCOTUS interprets the phrase “natural born citizen,” there is only one group who NBC status unquestionable.
There is no current legal interpretation of “natural born citizen.” That’s the problem.
To your point, however, there is only one group of citizens who are unquestionably and without doubt “natural born citizens” - those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No law is necessary to establish their citizenship. No interpretation of law is necessary to clarify their citizenship status. No legal arguments can be made against their citizenship.
About all other groups, legal arguments can be made for and against citizenship. Until and unless the SCOTUS interprets the phrase “natural born citizen,” there is only one group who NBC status unquestionable.
__________________________________________________________________________________
I am going to be picky - in Article II its ‘natural born Citizen’ it is not a unique standalone ‘term’ in conventional legal use. If it were it would be ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
So the phrase in total is not a proper noun. But the phrase does include a proper (defined) noun - Citizen.
I know I am being picky. But this is important for all of us to understand. The founders were not sloppy with this. They did not leave it ‘undefined’.
Here is an excellent write-up with additional detail.
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/capitalization-constitution-and-meaning.html