You must know more than this guy...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2838849/posts
From the above link:
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.
If it’s all the same, why did they use more specific language in article 2?
Exactly. To say that someone born a citizen is automatically a “natural born citizen” is simply begging the question, or using a circular argument.
At the same time it makes the unfounded assumption that there is no distinction between a citizen and a “natural born citizen.”
I’ll ask anyone reading to take notice: If there is no difference, then why have two different terms: “natural born citizen” and “citizen”?
I see a lot of supposition and argument from Donofrio, but not a lot of court citations that say anything about what he is saying.
Would you be open to reading, from Supreme Court decisions, the actual argument against a third type of citizenship?