Replies

"And in Minor vs. Happersett, they used both principles to rule that someone was not just a citizen, but a natural born citizen."

The Ruling in MvH concerned state's rights as it pertained to voter registration. The conversation about natural born citizenship in MvH was orbiter dictum.

"You are ~~almost~~ exactly correct that US law recognizes no differences whatsoever between the citizenship of one person versus that of another as far as the privileges and immunities of citizenshp are concerned, regardless of the principles by which a person's citizenship was acquired. The one exception is eligibility to be President. The courts have no choice on that: It's a Constitutional requirement." (fixed it)

"But it acknowledged that the Constitution does make such a distinction by using the phrase 'except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.'"

The Congress is Constitutionally mandated to define the naturalization process. The 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen without going through the naturalization process. The classification "Natural born citizen" is the only specific Constitutional citizenship status available and it is undefined. Consequently, only a Constitutional Amendment can define the term.