Citizens at birth via statute law have been ruled to be “naturalized” citizens. In particular, those born abroad of US citizen parents (one or both). The reason is because Congress has no power over citizenship other than the power to define the rules for Naturalization. There are more ways that the standard, “apply, take test, take oath” method to be naturalized. One way (actually several under the statutes) is to be born abroad of US citizen parent(s). Another is to be a resident of someplace annexed to the US, such as Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico. The people living there at the time were naturalized by specific acts of Congress.
See: Justia’s “NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP”, which has references to the appropriate Supreme Court cases.
As far as the difference between a 14th amendment citizen at birth due to birth in the US and “Natural Born Citizen” as used in Article II, Section 1, is (or could be) eligibility for the office of President. The Supreme Court has never taken nor ruled on such a case. Until they do, one must look to original understanding of the founding generations.
Since the Supreme Court has “never taken nor ruled on such a case” who is the “one” that you are referring to who “must look to original understanding of the founding generations?”
The current high court has rejected petitions for Writs of Certiorari in seven appeals challenging Obama’s eligibility.
My assumption is that the reason for those rejections of appeals is because they reached the high court after Obama had his electoral votes certified and had already been sworn in to the office.
As one US District Court Judge (Carter) stated in his dismissal opinion: Once a person is de jure president, they are also de facto president and it is the responsiblity of Congress to remove that person if they are found to be ineligible.
That’s probably why so many Obama eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as for lack of standing.
My point being that if there are distinctions between various "citizens-at-birth", some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between "born in the US" and "born in the US of citizen parents", essentially between "native born",(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and "natural born". There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.
My point being that if there are distinctions between various "citizens-at-birth", some even being naturalized, there can be a distinction between "born in the US" and "born in the US of citizen parents", essentially between "native born",(modern meaning) or 14th amendment, and "natural born". There just have been no Supreme Court cases were such a distinction would matter.