I haven't seen one. I'm just a "barracks lawyer" so I am not well familiar with all of the common law history or precedent that may well define it in a court (something to do with legitimation of a child and / or inheritance law), but this may be the reason why the current Immigration and Nationalization Law has these clauses in it to begin with (a statutory method to overcome the background of common law).
"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 added the requirement that the citizenmother must have been continuously physically present in the United States or a possession for twelve months prior to the child’s birth"
That is pretty close to a couple of clauses in §1401:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
The way I read the above is that they are just two different situations where somebody could be declared a citizen at birth, not that they would negate subparagraph (g). Subparagraph (d) wouldn't apply, as the father was not a national of the US. Subparagraph (e) wouldn't apply, as nobody is asserting Ø was born in an outlying possession.
I understand where you are coming from..but there must be something out there that reconciles the info..because it is pretty established in cases I have looked through etc...about the one year if out of wedlock.
One thing to keep in mind is that any case law may be obscure, if it, in fact, exists.
The usual situation is that the government wants to deny officially granting citizenship rights to a person. In fact, if you look at the corresponding parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, you will see that it explicitly states that the burden of proof is on the petitioner, in cases of certificates of citizenship or passports.
So most court cases would have the plaintiff trying to have the government (via the courts) include him as a citizen. In this case, we are trying to exclude him. You've got to admit that is not the norm.
That would also explain why people wouldn't notice that the State Department page substituted the word "citizen" for "national."