That was covered under one of the other passages I quoted:
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration "that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."
If the court recognizes that there are only two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized - then it is clear that in their eyes the terms 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' are synonymous. Otherwise they would have talked of three classes of citizen. But if 'natural born citizen' is your chosen phrase then in the Elg case, the Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that ruled that a woman who was born in the U.S. of parents, only one of which was a naturalized citizen, was a natural born U.S. citizen. The key is being born in the U.S. Parental citizenship doesn't matter in almost all cases.
All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.
But not born in the United States, since no such entity existed. Hence the need for the grandfather clause. Otherwise they would have excluded themselves from consideration.
In specifically recognizing Mr. Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. citizen (not a 'natural born citizen') under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS laid down the general rule that any individual (other than children of foreign rulers and diplomats) born on U.S. soil to permanent resident alien parents is a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.
It recognized Ark as a citizen at birth, and also made it clear that there were but two forms of citizenship. So unless you believe the intent of the Court was to exclude everyone from the presidency then it's clear that their position is citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same.
And here is a quote from an actual court case where 'natural born citizen' is cited.
And I also quoted from the Elg case, where 'natural born citizen' was cited. But in Happersett the question was not who is a natural born citizen but whether woman could be denied the right to vote. Chief Justice Chase also didn't rule one way or the other, merely noting there was some question. Well it's clear that the Ark case cleared up those questions in the eyes of the court.
What kind of citizenship did black people hold before the emancipation proclamation and the Constitutional Amendment citing full citizenship, if there have been only two forms of citizenship?
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
Additionally, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
In reading the Perkins v Elg case, the importance of that ruling is that it actually gives three examples of citizenship: what a Citizen of the U.S. is, what a native born American Citizen is, and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
All of our Presidents were born on the North American continent, even those that were born prior to the Constitution and "grandfathered" in. If they were born here, why did they not consider themselves natural born? The only thing different between them and those born later was their "allegiance" by birth (and that of their parents) to Britain. I think the key to understanding the intention and application of "NaturalBornCitizen" can be found in discovering why they did not confer NBC status on themselves. Just being born here was not enough for them; should just being born in America be enough for us?
And finally, since the documents Obama claim show him eligible as a U.S. born individual are not sufficient due to forgery and/or defacing the image of the CoLB document, if he was in fact born in Kenya then he is absolutely not eligible by the following law:
“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.” So far, mister affirmative action candidate has not provided proof of his eligibility to hold the job for which he is demanding recognition. You can spin the materials he's used to try to fools the public, I can cite why his posted documents are forgeries.
You can tell me that no one in authority has rejected him based upon documentations, I can show you how these 'authorities' have failed to actually vett the presidential candidates.
We can go round and round, but the reality is, because major questions of Obama's hidden documentation and his use of questionable documents, the SCOTUS needs to clarify the defintion of natural born citizen as it is applied in Constitutional eligibility for president. It would also be nice it they would clarify 'standing' to demand the canddiate show proof of eligibility.
Incidentally, if I hold out four coins—two dimes, two quarters—in my hand and tell you there are two similar coins in my hand, does that negate the existence of the other two coins? That a court ruling names two types of citizenship but does not address any other forms of smae does not mean there are only two.