No need. My research is quite current and correct. SCOTUS has never ruled on it.
According to the Foreign Affairs manual published by the U.S. Department of State, statutory citizenship (i.e. granted by U.S. statute at birth) may or may not be equivalent to natural-born citizenship under the U.S. Constitution.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
(...)
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such stat utes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of "jus sanguinis" under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 11
It does not say that both parents have to be US Citizen
.
Give it up Bucky.
That is the very foundational concept of “natural born.”
Natural born means that the citizenship is a natural fact independent of place of birth.