Chapter 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1130, pg 8) says (and yes, I know it addresses children born abroad):
The Constitution does not define "natural born". The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. 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."
For later
Oh, Leo Donofrio is on RIGHT NOW (at 823 pm CST) on http://www.plainsradio.com/chat.html
The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone's Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They'll probably look at the differences between "citizen" and "subject," and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.
I have come to the conclusion, that this is what they will have to do, in order to make a valid determination of what the Framers meant by Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.
And, until Barry Obama shows up with some documentary evidence, we won't know how this will affect him. He's playing a waiting game with this, which does not bode well for his real status. The longer he stonewalls, the deeper the public suspicion about him.
“BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. What did the Framers mean with ‘Natural Born Citizen’?
The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They’ll probably look at the differences between ‘citizen’ and ‘subject,’ and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.”
You’re missing something important here. There is also the 14th amendment to deal with. Although it does not amend the qualifications for the presidency, it does set qualifications for who is born a citizen, which is equivalent to defining what a natural born citizen is. SCOTUS would have to take into account how the 14th amendment was understood at the time of its passing.