[DiogenesLamp]

The logic is pretty simple. If you want to argue that someone is not a natural-born citizen, a declaration that certain people are natural-born citizens is not what you need. That all A is B does not imply that all B is A. You simply get a big red X through your homework.

We have a ruling that a "born citizen" is not a "natural born citizen." Rogers v Bellei.
Therefore, if A > B then B != A.

[BladeBryan]

“We have a ruling that a “born citizen” is not a “natural born citizen.” Rogers v Bellei.”

To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try it in your imagination, isn’t it?
http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf

[bluecat6]

Rogers v Bellei

That is one heck of ruling!

It is almost as significant as M v H.

Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.

“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.

M v. H definition stands.