I know what cases you're referring to. You need to look up the definition of obiter dictum some time.
In only one case was the question of natural born citizenship raised, the Ark decision. There the justices determined that Ark was a citizen by birth, which most people accept is synonymous with natural-born citizen.
Maybe you should have sought out a court to define your oath for you.
No need.
“... which most people accept is synonymous ...” Prove it you obamanoid sycophant.
No -- you neeed to look it up. It's not obiter dictum when it is factual and part of the facts relied upon by the Court in order to reach its decision.
There the justices determined that Ark was a citizen by birth, which most people accept is synonymous with natural-born citizen.
But did the Supreme Court, which you said was your authority for understanding the Constitution when taking the oath, say that??? They didn't did they???
So now you are saying that you are changing your oath in midstream and relying on these other "people" to for your interpretation, not only of the Constitution but the words of the Supreme Court as well.
Like I said, what good was your oath when you can pick and choose your interpreters of it and thus keep changing what you meant by it???
"Most people" believe a lot of things that are wrong. And the Court did not call Ark a natural born citizen. That was not at issue, only if he was a citizen. The only sort of case where "natural born" could be at issue is a Presidential eligibility case. (Or a VP one of course). There has never been such a case heard by the Supreme Court.
But I see you continue to assume your conclusion that "citizen at birth" means "natural born". Even the Surpeme disagrees with that. In some cases "citizen at birht" may be a naturalized citizen. In fact all persons born outside the US, but "citizens" at birth under statute law are "naturalized", for the power of defining a rule of naturalization is the only power Congress has over citizenship.