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".
You said?:
“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”. “
This latter Amendment defines a citizen but not a natural born citizen. It in no way was written either (there is no historical context) in any way that it was intended to change Artile II - Section 1 of the Constitution.