It’s not all about the birth certificate. It’s really about the legal definition of a “natural born citizen.”
Based on the raonale for the “natural born citizen” provision-—ensuring against foreign allegiance, etc.-—here’s what I think would have made sense to the framers at the time:
(1) Natural born citizen = a citizen literally “born American” (as opposed to merely born IN America). This means citizenship determined by descent-—i.e., by operation of nature (or “natural law”). At that time, most likely descent from the father. I don’t think we have had a president whose parents were not both Americans at the time of his birth. Obama’s named father clearly was not an American.
(2) Citizenship at birth = those who are Americans at birth because a law makes them so-—i.e., by operation of law-—, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. These Americans AT birth would not have the same status as Americans BY birth. In the latter case, no law, at all, was required to make them citizens while, in the former case, a law was required.
(3) Naturalized citizens = those who were not Americans BY birth or AT birth, but obtain citizenship later by fulfilling a legal requirement and doing a substantive legal act to obtain citizenship. This would be citizenship by operation of law and volition.
In short:
— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.
Since much of the caselaw on citizenship addresses only citizenship, and therefore could be limited to citizenship by operation of positive law (i.e., AT birth as opposed to BY birth), much of that precedent may not be helpful in determining eligibility to serve as President.
OTOH, if natural born citizenship status is as simple as having two parents who were Americans by the time of one’s birth, or—according to the law at the time-—a father who was American by the time of one’s birth, that’s a straightforward standard that would greatly limit the possible factual permutations that could be presented.
“— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.”
There are only two categories of citizenship: 1) born citizens, and 2) naturalized citizens. Your third category is a figment of your imagination. “Natural law” has been superceded by man-made law in America, or haven’t you heard?
[Ping to #22] In short:
— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.
That's a good argument and the best definition I've ever heard argued concerning natural born citizen. The next step is convincing a few key judges. I haven't read any decisions that would rate as precedence agreeing with you, but there's always a first time.