Ummm, several those are consistent with the Supreme Court: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens.
The Supreme Court has FAINTLY hinted on two occasions that I can think of offhand.
Once was The Venus. Except that wasn't about citizenship, it was about domicile. Marshall did not attempt to claim at all that natural born citizenship required citizen parents. That simply wasn't the purpose he cited Vattel for.
The other was Minor v. Happersett. The comment was 2 sentences of CLEAR dicta (because it was unsupported by any argument or authority whatsoever and the status of persons born of alien parents was absolutely irrelevant to the case). And the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide that issue.
Again, the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark issued a definitive ruling that encompassed natural born citizenship, as an exhaustive examination of natural born subjecthood/ citizenship was the entire core rationale of the case.
DOZENS of pages.
Birthers strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Two citizens of clear dicta supposedly rule; dozens of pages of on-target, in-depth legal analysis count for nothing.
It's what birthers do all the time. They do it because they WANT particular results, and no proper approach to evidence or history will give them those results.
This isn't controversial in any court of law or in any legal circles. It is entirely settled law that citizen parents are NOT required for natural born citizenship, at least for those born on US soil.
You're wasting your life to claim otherwise. Of course, it's your life. But you're also harming conservatism.
Not one of the afore-mentioned authorities ever says citizen parents were required for those born on US soil to be natural born citizens. Some, like Rawle, are quite clear that citizen parents were NOT required at all for such people to be natural born citizens.
Why do you continue to oppose the actual evidence, and to claim it says what it doesn't say? Aren't the real Founding Fathers and our real Constitution good enough for you? Why do you have to insist that they, and it, say things that they, and it, never said?
As for the Supreme Court, it is equally crystal clear to anyone rightly interpreting legal text, that the brief 2 sentences in Minor are PURE dicta. And the statements in Wong are crystal clear precedent. The Supreme Court says it doesn't take citizen parents for a person born on US soil to be a natural born citizen, and NEVER DID.