[Danae]

You are just wrong. There is no legal basis for the birthers unique inerpretation of the Constitution. That’s why no court in America will give you the time of day.

Well Golly Gee, the flipping Supreme Court of the United States totally disagrees with your opinion.

Minor v Happersett (1874)

"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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168."

[Hugin]

You are taking that out of context. Try reading the whole thing. To paraphrase, that deciction states that there is a theory that people born here to non-citizens are not natural born, but specifically states that it was not necesarry to rule on that issue in that case. Courts generally do not rule on issues in cases if they have a simpler way to settle it. In that case, they decided that since the plainriff as clearly a citizen, and that was all they needed to know, they didn’t have to decide deal with it.

In the common sense use of the language, anyone born a citizen is natural born, in that they don’t need to be “naturalized”. There are no precendents creating a third kind of citizen. That’s why all the birther lawsuits ultimately go nowhere.