your original understanding was correct. everything else has been a push to allow 0bama to remain in office.
the founders wanted to insure that no future king of england could become president. as such, they used the term ‘natural born citizen’ instead of ‘citizen’.
if being citizen was enough, then a child of prince willam and kate could be born in NYC that could be president as well as king of england. this is the exact situation the founders wanted to avoid. therefore, being born on the soil is not enough.
I respect, honor, and appreciate your opinion. However, since your paycheck isn't marked "SCOTUS," that's all it is: an opinion no worthier or weightier than mine. Neither opinion should have any effect on what is supposed to rule us both: The COTUS.
Except, that it does; being the opinion of an apparent majority. That should still not affect The COTUS unless it has been amended as per the defined process, or interpreted in a way that agrees with your opinion and that of others by the SCOTUS in a case referred to it for appeal.
IMNVHO, we are living through a successful anti-Constitutional coup, a period of fundamentally weakened law, the possible end result of which could well be eventual anarchy.
We are not the only republic in this hemisphere. The difference is we have had only one revolution and one civil war. Every other country, save Canada, has had many. The shooting usually starts after one group interprets the nation's constitution in a way with which another group has a valid fundamental disagreement and is denied due process.
As our demographics change drastically (AND ILLEGALLY), we would be naïve in the extreme to think that fundamental changes can be continually made to the COTUS in a peaceful manner outside of the process. The rule of law is not about the wishes of any majority. Nor can or should these changes be made by denying the SCOTUS to appellants, as is clearly being done now in regard to Presidential eligibility.