First of all, this article was written to address the very specific question of, "Can a person born of two citizen parents overseas serve as President of the United States?" This is not the exact question begged by the current situation with Obama (at least not on this thread), but the article does address nicely the question, "Can a person simply born on US soil, of either two aliens, or one alien and one citizen, serve as President?", which seems to be the issue you both are debating currently here, in this thread.
The relevant passage is below, from section IV entitled, "The English Common Law per Wong Kim Ark".
Although the Court did not specifically address the presidential Natural‐Born Citizen Clause, it nevertheless made reference to the Clause and proceeded to explicate the 14th Amendment in light of the English common law.
snip...
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States' and "natural‐born citizen of the United States'... . The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
The purpose of the Supreme Court delving into the English common law in Wong Kim Ark was to determine the citizenship status of a man born in California to citizens of China. 72 In 1894, Wong Kim Ark left the United States for a visit to China, returning in 1895 only to be refused entry on the basis that he was not a citizen of the United States. 73 Concluding that Wong Kim Ark was a United States citizen, 74 the Court explained "the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance," 75 or jus soli. 76 This principle meant that anyone born within British dominions was deemed a natural‐born British subject, regardless of parentage.
snip...
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural‐born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. 81
Relying on United States v. Rhodes 82 the Court reasoned:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural‐born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural‐born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law [*361] has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. 83
The Court recognized that at the time of the framing of the United States Constitution and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, other sovereigns held to a rule of jus sanguinis, 84 allowing citizenship to pass by parentage. (de Vattel's writings for example, which are often bandied about on FR as "proof" that NBC's can only be born from two citizen parents)85 However, the Court was steadfast in its support of the British rule of jus soli whereby citizenship is acquired by country of birth. 86
The Court also stated:
there is ... little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. 87
While the Court's finding in Wong Kim Ark decided only whether an individual born on American soil was deemed a citizen at birth per the Fourteenth Amendment,...etc.
The article then goes on to address the specific question it was written for, namely the issue of "natural born status" of a child born to two citizen parents overseas. (which is not relevant here, for this discussion, if we are simply granting that Obama was born in HI).
If we do grant that he was born in the 50th state, the issue seems to be settled and unquestionable. As the article itself states (which can be found here), again, "...the Court's finding in Wong Kim Ark decided...whether an individual born on American soil was deemed a citizen at birth per the Fourteenth Amendment..." To me, this is proof that there is over 100 years of established precedent for the so called "anchor baby", and to state otherwise (i.e., to confine the definition of "natural born citizen" to that of only two citizen parents, regardless of the location of birth) is unwarranted.
Thanks, and I agree. This decision makes it quite clear that "natural born citizen" means citizen at birth, and that the citizenship of the parents doesn't matter.