'Fraid not. Congress only has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". They cannot define who is a "natural born" citizen. They can only define who can be naturalized, and how. Thus anyone not a natural born citizen, or a so called 14th amendment or "native born" citizen, who is a citizen solely by virtue of Congress' "Uniform Rule" is a naturalized citizen.
Where you go wrong is assuming that "birthright" and "natural born" are the same thing, they aren't. There are (at least) three circumstances where one is born a citizen. One can be natural born, one can be native born (which Obama would be if born in the US) , or one can be naturalized at birth under statute law, (which he would have been if born outside the US and his mother had been a bit older).
Either that, or the Constitution does not mean what it says, which appears to be the Obamites' position.
“Congress only has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. They cannot define who is a “natural born” citizen.”
Not So. Congress has set laws on who becomes citizen at birth. They have done so since a law back in 1795 on the matter.
See this description of citizenship at birth defined by Congressional statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
“In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:
1. Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
2. At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth.
INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, “and one of whom has had a residence.” The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states “no amount of time specified.”
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.
[edit] Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]
1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
2. The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child’s birth;
3. A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of his or her citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.
Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.
Last point. Your claim that there are 3 circumstances of birth citizenship contradicts Supreme Court rulings and statements ...
SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
Relevent quote snippets:
“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. “
Kim Ark references this earlier ruling:
“In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects. “
... and ...
“It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.””
The meaning is clear. “natural-born” is synonymous to aquiring citizenship at birth. Natural-born citizens are simply those who are citizens at time of birth. There is no “super-duper” citizen class above and beyond a citizen from time of birth. Asserting that contradicts the text and meaning of the 14th and additional statutes and precedents.