The position is reduced to absurdity. In this scenario, even a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents is ineligible to run for President.
They simply didn’t intend this level of exclusion. All children born on US soil were eligible to run for President, and per act of the First Congress of the United States, they specified that all children born of US citizens abroad were to be considered as natural born citizens (and therefore eligible to run for President) as well.
It would’ve even been possible for a person to be born of foreign parents on US soil, or of US parents on foreign soil, to go and live overseas for the first fifty years of his life, then return to a United States he had never known, and be elected to President at age 64. Even if you don’t agree with the first part of that, the latter part - that a natural born citizen could live abroad for the first fifty years of his life, and then be elected President - is indisputable. And yet such a person would have spent an entire lifetime living as a Frenchman, or an Englishman, or whatever.
It just wasn’t intended to be an airtight system. It was merely one protection.
The rest of it, most of it in fact, was up to having an citizenry intelligent enough to decide whether or not electing that particular person was a good idea.
The power to govern was supposed to derive from the people, and they were responsible for choosing the leader.
They intended to exclude those born with foreign allegiance post grandfather clause. Makes sense too, from a military perspective.
Forget the hypothetical - Obama has just one citizen parent, making him ineligible, even if he was born in Hawaii.
On a related note, releasing a forged birth certificate is surely an impeachable offense - wouldn’t you agree?