No kidding?
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
And under English common law, children born within the realm of the King where natural-born subjects of the King regardless of the nationality of the parents. Or so quoted Justice Gray in the Ark decision.
" Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
And Justice Waitie was correct. The Happersett decision was not the place to solve whatever doubts one might have over who is a natural-born citizen and who was not, especially considering it was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case. So at best your 'doubts' persist. But your doubts do not the law make. You can present any definition of natural-born citizen you might care to make up. That doesn't make it settled law.
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?...
Nowhere. Now tell me where the Constitution or the law defines either statuatory natural-born citizen or Constitutional natural-born citizen.
Thank you, that is exactly what I have been trying to get you and others to see. There is a legitimate legal question even if Obama was born in Hawaii. Lawyers make a living by arguing the law on both sides. It can be decided by a quo warranto action that probably will end up in the USSC. It ain't over till the fat lady Sotomayer sings...of course she should recuse herself if she is a SSJ when the case is heard unlike the clown in the Wong Kim Ark case.