Thanks for posting this.
I absolutely agree with the position taken by Leo Donoforio in regards to the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution.
If the Framers had wanted to say “anyone born on U.S. soil” then they would of said that but instead they used a term that was defined just as Leo said.
Those who want this issue to go away are simply showing a disregard for our Constitution, imo, simply because they feel like it is futile or are afraid of the unrest that this issue may cause.
The founders don't always have the last word, latter amendments can change things.
Amendment XIV, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So certainly Jindal was a "Citizen at Birth", it remains to be seen if that is the same as a "natural born" citizen. I think in this case, involving a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to a change in the statute law about the requirements for a person born outside to the US to recieve citizenship via a parent or parents, the answer is probably "Yes".