[jamese777]

What does Osborn v Bank of the United States have to do with Article Two, Section One, Clause Five?
It has as much to do with it as did the 14th Amendment, jamese777, which is to say nothing. But, it does, however, state quite clearly why there are no laws pertaining to natural born citizens made by Congress, and that is that the Constitution alone makes the distinction, because the enumerated power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform law of naturalization. Naturalization has nothing to do with natural born. You can scroll up to my reply to this very thread, at #8377, or, oh, what the heck, I’ll post it again:

A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

---

However naturalization has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility claim. He claims natural born citizen/citizen at birth status under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution and he has proffered a state of Hawaii Vital Record stating that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii after it attained statehood on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 P.M.
Congress has indeed made laws that define and explicate Citizen-At-Birth status. It is my opinion that the constitutional question that remains for the Supreme Court to decide is whether a Citizen at birth as delineated in the US Code of Laws and a Natural Born Citizen as it appears in the Consitution are identical or not.
Here is a listing of the court cases where the term “Natural Born Citizen” has appeared:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html

[RegulatorCountry]

Congress has indeed made laws that define and explicate Citizen-At-Birth status

So, let's take a look at these laws, to determine whether they're:

A) Unconstitutional due to Congressional overreach, beyond express limitation to naturalization by the Constitution itself, or:

B) Only dealing with naturalization, and therefore not natural born, which is therefore correct per the power enumerated to Congress by the Constitution itself.

You keep banging your head on this, but if what you repeatedly insist is so, it's either unconstitutional or the law only deals with naturalization. Take your pick. It can be no other way, jamese777.