[DiogenesLamp]

Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is that, because the Constitution does not define the term, it would be unconstitutional for it to be defined? By anyone? Ever?

It cannot be "defined", merely recognized. Like the laws of Mathematics, the meaning is a function of reality, not of preferred description.

Any attempt to force "natural citizen" to be defined by law is no different from that attempt by the legislature of Indiana to define "Pi" as 3.2.

"Natural Law" is not subject to man-made preference.

[ReignOfError]

“Natural law” was cited in support of the divine right of monarchs. As often as not, a claim based on national law is a fancied-up “because I say so.” The definition of pi can be mathematically and objectively determined; citizenship status cannot.

Invoking “natural law” is fine as a philosophical construct, but laws enforced by humans should be limited to those written by humans.