I think this sums it up pretty nicely:
The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word is relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else.
So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’? There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”. That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!”. Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship. 1) born in or out of a country. 2) Both parents are citizens. 3) One parent is a citizen. 4) Neither parent is a citizen. The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT. Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born Americans. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do the decide to ignore next?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2999448/posts?page=7#7
See more SCOTUS decisions here:
U.S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
Natural born Citizen and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret): http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Very good presentation of the difference between Citizens under Title 8 Section 1401 or other man-made positive law, treaty, constitutional amendments, etc., grants of citizenship by positive law. In none of those positive law grants of citizenship to the USA is the term “natural born Citizen” mentioned. The reason is as you described. A “natural born Citizen” naturally does not need any man-made positive law, etc., to make or declare them a Citizen. Natural Law covered it.
Here is an essay I wrote on the founders and framers original intent, meaning, and understanding of the natural law term “natural born Citizen”. Adjectives mean something. See: Is Being a ‘Born Citizen’ of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? Founders/Framers said no! https://www.scribd.com/document/73983978/Is-Being-a-Born-Citizen-of-the-United-States-of-Sufficient-Citizenship-Status-to-be-President-Founders-Framers-said-no
Also for those here familiar with Euler Diagrams to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument see:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299297748/Euler-Logic-Diagram-Shows-Logical-Relationship-of-natural-born-Citizen-Set-and-SuperSets
Like I said get back to me when you can find a precedent that any court has accepted your opinion on the subject. Until then it’s all just that, your opinion. No matter how wordy.
Abbott: You throw the ball to first base.
Costello: Then who gets it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.
Abbott: No!
Costello: Naturally gets the ball and...and...
Abbott: You throw the ball to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: That's what I'm saying!?
Abbott: You're not saying it...
Costello: I said, I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don't!
Costello: I throw it to who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: That's what I'm saying!
Abbott: No it isn't.
Sorry... I couldn't resist... ⚾
-PJ