Do you know what a cognitive dissonance it is to cite a *law* regarding a constitutional term?
“To further delineate” natural born citizen as requiring two U.S. citizen parents even if a person is born in the U.S. would require legislation, constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling to that effect.
No more so than requiring a law to delineate "bullets" as a necessary requirement for "arms." In cases where you can't have one without the other, it is an unnecessary redundancy.
What I know is that every law that exists in the U.S. Code is constitutional unless and until it is invalidated for being unconstitutional. The cognitive dissonance rests with you. Any high school civics student knows how statutory laws work in accordance with constitutional law.
If it was an “unnecessary redundancy” at some point in time a person who didn’t have two U.S. citizen parents would have been ruled not to be a natural born citizen. That has never happened.
Parenthood is a very inexact method. In the absence of DNA tests are we ever certain that the people listed on a birth certificate are really the biological parents? And do the parents have to be natural born citizens themselves or can they be naturalized citizens?
For example, what if, as has been speculated by some, Frank Marshall Wright is Barack Obama’s true biological father? If that were determined by paternity testing, that would make Obama a natural born citizen by any standard since Frank Marshall Wright was born in Arkansas City, Kansas and Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas.
However it HAS happened that persons have been ruled not to be natural born citizens on the basis of not being born in the United States with U.S. citizen parents. The latest being Roger Calero of the Social Workers Party who ran for president in 2004 and in 2008 and who was born in Nicaragua and who needed to have a substitute candidate run in his place in some states.