Thanks for the clarification.
So, it's not as easy as I thought i.e. merely relying on Article II, Section I.
In that case, I don't see anything (and I believe the idiot was born in Hawaii, mind you) that makes him not a "natural born citizen".
Vatel's "Law of Nations", which the founders were known to have relied on and consulted, defined natural born as born in the country of citizen parents. (Plural)
And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. "
So you have "citizens" which include "naturalized citizens" that are foreigners that have come here. You have "Native citizens" that were born here, regardless of parents. And you have "Natural Born citizens" that were born here of two citizen parents.
To make it more confusing, though, the first or second congress, temporarily defined “Natural Born” much wider, but they repealed the “Natural Born” language the next session. And it’s believed that they repealed it because they recognized they didn’t have the authority to redefine “the Natural Born criteria”, though they could define citizenship.
Congress doesn’t have the authority to redefine most Constitutional terms by statute. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.