Here are the pertinent sections from Minor vs. Happersett:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
[The next section is most important, particularly the last line quoted.]
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens...”
And that last line, my dear RummyChick, is the definition of natural born citizen.
I won't be insulted if you disagree, but saying that they declined to discuss the issue is, well, disingenuous. They certainly did discuss it, as this quote is from the Opinion of the Court as delivered by the Chief Justice. The above quote from Minor vs. Happersett is thanks to the Legal Informtion Institute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
They DID NOT DISCUSS what did not apply to the case - and this was clearly stated by the Chief Justice.
I am not going to continue to discuss it. ANYONE who CLEARLY refuses to acknowlege what was said by the Chief Justice has an agenda.
There is one definition. It may not be the ONLY definition.
As for Naturalization versus birth you should be doing more reading on that...as in the transcript of the oral argument in Nguyen that discusses another SCOTUS case.