[Non-Sequitur]

The fourteenth amendment did not erase the "natural born" citizen requirement, nor did it attempt to redefine it. In fact, it's still in there. Why must you lie to make your point? It automatically shows your position to be worthless and dishonest.

In order to 'redefine' something it has to be defined in the first place. Where in the Constitution is natural-born citizen defined?

[Uncle Sham]

"In order to 'redefine' something it has to be defined in the first place. Where in the Constitution is natural-born citizen defined?"

Yours is a straw man argument for it rest on the presumption that everything written in the Constitution has to be defined within the Constitution. We have a right to bear arms in the second amendment but you'll not see "arms" defined anywhere within the text of the document.

You lied purposely in your posting and I was calling it out. Deal with it.

For the record, the father of your fourteenth amendment, John Bingham had this to say about the natural born citizen issue:

"every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))