[DiogenesLamp]

I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

This is a good time to interject this point. Your quote above is critical to the point. You said:

"The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by "natural-born citizen." Which is virtually identical to what the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett while they were discussing the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:

"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."

[DTxAg]

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:
"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."

But Happersett says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." So aren't they equating native born and natural born?