Has the Court ever ruled on the definition of natural born
as it applies to the presidency?
As far as citizenship, the Court has made it quite plain that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, being born in the US makes you a citizen regardless of parentage (except for diplomats). Now, the common understanding of natural born
vs naturalized
is that naturalized means you were not born a citizen but became one as a result of a legal process, whereas natural born means you were a citizen from birth. Therefore, Jindal is eligible, unless either we amend the Constitution to define natural born
unambiguously or the Court spins up a definition out of thin air, which they are most unlikely to do.
As for Obama, the question of his eligibility is a dead horse. The only way to get rid of him is impeachment or failure to reelect. So, there is no motive to question Jindal's eligibility, only his electability.
No amendment is needed to define 'natural born citizen' as there was but one definition of that term at the time the framers included it in our Constitution.
The question of Obama's eligiblity may be a dead horse to you......but I'll continue to protect and defend the Constitution.