And the Supreme Court has been consistent for the last 120+ years in holding that a natural born citizen = native citizen = citizenship from birth in the USA, and multiple courts held the same since the founding of the Republic.
Now you’re just out and out lying!
No, I am not. They have in repeated cases used NBC and native citizen as interchangeable. For example, in Perkins v Elg, they cite approvingly this statement:
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
Notice the AG used ‘native citizen’ in place of NBC.
They later say: “ But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”
Again, they use native citizen and NBC interchangeably. It is interesting to note they do not even contemplate anyone holding a contrary view.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html