[BuckeyeTexan]

However, the word “born” in “natural born citizens” suggests that “born” citizens who are statuatory are also constitutionally protected.

SCOTUS said in Rogers v. Bellei that "statutory only" citizens (your term) have no constitutional right to their citizenship. Therefore no such protection attaches. Again, the dissent believed they did have constitutional protection under 14A because they were naturalized.

Today, SCOTUS would likely rule with you.

[xzins]

The section of the law which Scotus upheld was removed by Congress, so I’m sure it would be different the next time around.

In addition to the dissent, the Scotus had to overrule a lower court that had found stripping of citizenship to be unconstitutional....but that’s why they’re lower courts. :>)

[DiogenesLamp]

writing to xzins, BuckeyeTexan said: Today, SCOTUS would likely rule with you.

But it wouldn't make either of them factually correct.

:)