The 14th Amendment dealt specifically with former slaves who were being denied citizenship by some states, and has been interpreted to mean that citizenship cannot be denied to anyone born here. This erroneous interpretation of the 14th has led to the phenomenon of so-called “anchor babies” born of a mother who merely crossed into the country to give birth.
Most nations have done away with such controversial policies that are detrimental to the economic wellbeing of the country, among them Canada and Australia. We have no such policy, we have a deliberate twisting of Constitutional meaning for political and economic ends, political on the left, economic on the right.
The 14th Amendment neither dealt with nor altered the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to the office of President, so any understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” must resort to original intent. You can debate that intent all you want, but that is where the answer lies.
Far greater minds than yours or mine, genuine Constitutional scholars, have stated as much. Of course, they stated this during the controversy over McCain’s eligibility and fell oddly silent when it came to the equally questionable Obama. But, the statements do apply to either instance.
What does *not* apply, is the 14th Amendment.
That's why I said like it or not.. I am read on to all of this. I know the original intent of the 14th. I hope all of you understand I am arguing from a practical perspective. I would be in the front of the line dancing my ass off if Obama was thrown out of office for being ineligible. I would be equally elated if I won the lotto 3 times in a row. I expect the likelihood of either event nearer zero than any other infinitesimal number I can imagine.