Chisholm was cited due to the recognition of citizen sovreignty put forth by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay. Citizen sovreignty is important due to the stark comparison with sovreigns under forms of government other than a Constitutional Republic, such as a monarchy. Under a Constitutional Republic, with sovereignty having devolved upon the citizens due to the absence of any lord or king to pledge one's liege or allegiance, such allegiance is to the citizenry as the people themselves, "We, the people." This is important in context, in understanding where John Jay was coming from, in having the "natural-born citizen" requirement inserted into the Constitution prior to ratification. That term, "natural-born citizen," did not come to John Jay in a dream, he didn't invent it himself ... he read it in The Law Of Nations, by Vattel. Vattel's definition of the term that Vattel coined, is two citizen parents and born of the soil.
Marbury was cited due to the limitations upon amendment recognized therein, as well as the proper role of the judiciary and the Constitutional limitations upon the judiciary itself, when dealing with issues pertaining to the judiciary under the Constitution.
The author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, was mentioned because he so clearly stated that:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
as you noted. Bingham is stating that the truth of the term "natural-born citizen" is self-evident, and we do hold these truths to be self-evident, do we not? Please also note, that Bingham is also quoted as warning, in the Spring of 1868, that:
"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."
Immigration and naturalization do not deal with anyone being a natural-born citizen. That Congress has not successfully enacted any statute law dealing with the status or the term itself, since repealing The Naturalization Act Of 1790, should tell you something, if you're willing to understand.
I haven’t misconstrued anything. You have intentionally tried to cloud the issue. You continually cite John Bingham who was writing about things almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, yet have a problem with a law that was passed by the people that actually wrote the Constitution.
Oh, and nothing Bingham states is against what was said previously. That is that a child born outside the U.S. to two American parents is born an American citizen and is qualified to be President of the U.S. You cite Bingham but fail to mention that the 14th amendment never even uses the word Natural born citizen, does it? It uses the same language “citizens of the United States” as the many laws that have been enacted to clarify what a natural born citizen is.
To summarize. The constitution gives the qualification of a President (natural born citizen) but does not define it. Vattel is not constitutional authority. They left the definition of it up to the States, Congress, Courts etc. If not, they would have defined the term right in the constitution. The first Congress defined that as a child born to two U.S. citizens outside the U.S. is a natural born citizen. Subsequent Congresses have defined these children as citizens of the United States. The same term used in the 14th amendment which you use to justify people born here to be natural born.
We have had many Presidential candidates (Romney, Goldwater) who were born outside the U.S. and no one had a problem with them. It was understood because of existing laws. Defining natural born does not violate anything in the Constitution. The only reason Obama’s citizenship is in question is because he is thought to be born outside the U.S. and one of his parents was not an American citizen.
Question, if John McCain was not born a citizen of the United States, to which country was he born to? Panama? Is he actually Panamanian and someone didn’t tell us?