Is the 14th Amendment solely about naturalization? (Hint: what part of “all persons BORN...” don’t you understand?) Was the 14th Amendment promulgated Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states?
The Amendments are no different than the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison established the concept of judicial review. The 14th Amendment has been under judicial review hundreds of times in hundreds of different cases. The precedent setting 14th Amendment case with regard to natural born status is United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. The Supreme Court ruled (6-2 with one Justice not participating in the decision) that a child born in the United States to foreign (in this case, Chinese) parents is indeed a born citizen of the United States.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
I'm going to ignore the snide tone, and address the Constitutional Amendment, and any related, statutory law. The Amendment itself dealt with recognizing the rights and obligations of citizenship for a class of people denied that status (refer back to the dicta from Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. for recognition of limitations upon Congress due to enumeration, and also the restrictions upon the Judiciary due to principles established in Marbury v. Madison,pertaining to the Judiciary having no review over Constitutional matters pertaining to the Judiciary itself under the Constitution).
Those rights, again referring back to Osborn and others, cannot be enlarged or restricted, as has been recognized by the Supreme Court and by Congress. The rights of a citizen, regardless of the nature of how that citizenship was acquired, are the same rights that every other citizen enjoys, except as the Constitution makes a distinction. The only distinction the Constitution makes between the citizens themselves, is in the single clause dealing with Presidential eligibility.
The 14th Amendment did not deal with Presidential eligibility, and it did not deal with enlarging or restricting the rights of citizens because it could not do so; it dealt with recognizing and righting an error in denying citizenship to a class of people born here, former slaves.
Whether or not these former slaves, made citizens as a result of the 14th Amendment, were natural born citizens as a result, or not, was not addressed. And, this is correct, per the precedent in the various decisions going all the way back to the removal of the words "natural born citizen" from The Naturalization Act Of 1790," and making that the law as of 1795. Naturalization cannot deal with Constitutional natural born citizens.
The children of these former slaves, however, were not made citizen by Constitutional Amendment, and so certainly were natural born citizens, assuming that both parents were themselves citizens, and that they were born on US soil. And so, the historical wrong was undone and set aright going forward.
So, the meaning of all this, is that you are going to have to contend with original intent, as far as the meaning of the words, no matter how hard you strain at gnats in an odd and somewhat inexplicable (on FR at least) attempt to contort the Constitution itself, a Constitutional Amendment that does not deal with natural born citizenship, and statutory law, into somehow making Barack Obama eligible for office.
It really is cause for amazement, that you go to such effort to that end, here.
What's it to you, if he's deemed ineligible? Do you approve of his being in the Presidency, or what? Sure sounds like it.