Almost right, but profoundly wrong.
"...according to the law in place at the time, birth overseas to parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, makes him a citizen at birth." True.
"AKA, natural born citizen." False. The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away. Whatever the citizenship status, if it depends on legislation, it is not "natural". "Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.
This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.
Hardly.
The status of "natural born citizen" does not depend on the operation of any statute, and indeed cannot, or a new statute could take it away..."Natural-born citizenship" is a citizenship status that derives from the operation of natural law independently of any statute, and which cannot be removed by statute - or any act of man.
Nor, apparently, is it defined anywhere so 'natural born citizen' apparently means what you want it to mean. Very convenient, but totally impractical and completely at odds with the Constitution which says that it is supreme and not some unwritten law.
This is the view of the fremaers, and it is the view of the drafters of the 14th, and it ought to be our view if we wish to be true to the Constitution.
Recognizing that the Constitution recognizes only two forms of citizenship is being true to it. The idea that there might be three or more classes of citizenship ignores the Constitution.