Seriously, posts like yours make Conservatives look like fools.
The Chief Justice DECLINED to address the issue as to whether there is more than one definition.
HE PUNTED.
They often do that when it is NOT GERMANE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
Here us the relevant quote and their definitive statement is the 3rd and 4th sentences (in plain English):
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.
They also say that there is no doubt about that first statement, only about other definitions of citizenship, yet here comes you claiming that I may be a fool even when I provide their exact intent in the ruling!! BTW, I also provided this to you in a private posting which you apparently ignored as you continue your obfuscation of the issue here - in public! Adios again and good riddance!! SHEEESH
JC