Do you support original intent, or do you support the various attempts to remove the requirement, and open the Presidency to naturalized citizens?"
The ambiguity of the natural-born citizenship clause stems (at least in part) from the passage and incorporation of the 14th Amendment and the fact the 14th doesn't specifically use that phrase "natural-born". This ambiguity has never been litigated, narrowed or clarified, form what I can tell, nor does that phrase "natural-born" appear in any other statute or judicial ruling or finding.
The Constitution's Article 2 is fairly clear, IMO. And, I believe that the founder's intent is easily discernible as to what constitutes a natural-born citizen. In my opinion, the Constitution and the relevant laws of the land require that to be eligible for the Presidency, you must be born to TWO American citizens, not necessarily on American soil, however. I don't believe, based on the intent of the framers, that Obama qualifies, even if he was born in the US. But, that's an opinion. Unfortunately, no court has decided that it wants to hear the case on the merits, and until they do, it's all just speculation, conjecture and opinion.
I would add, and this is probably where we differ the most, that if (for discussion purposes only) Obama's father was actually a US citizen, and after his death Barack himself was adopted by another man while still a minor, and that a foreign country would consequently bestow or confer citizenship because of that adoption, it would have no relevance or bearing on Obama's eligibility for President. American courts don't hold children responsible for the actions of their parents, nor do they hold children capable of entering into legally binding agreements until after their 18, or after they've been legally emancipated minors.
As I said in an earlier post to someone else, until this central issue is addressed by a court and upheld by the Supremes, it will continue to be a contentious issue.
As for your last question, I would not support amending the Constitution to allow for naturalized citizens to hold the office of President or Vice-President.
I have numerous replies on FR, pointing out the contortion and misapplication of the 14th in matters upon which it cannot legally be brought to bear, due to Constitutional enumeration of powers. The author of the 14th, Bingham, stated in no uncertain terms that natural-born citizenship is transmitted by two citizen parents, to individuals born on US soil. The phrase "natural-born citizen" does not appear in any other statute because it literally cannot be conferred by statute.
I would add, and this is probably where we differ the most, that if (for discussion purposes only) Obama's father was actually a US citizen, and after his death Barack himself was adopted by another man while still a minor, and that a foreign country would consequently bestow or confer citizenship because of that adoption, it would have no relevance or bearing on Obama's eligibility for President.
You've misunderstood the intent behind my comments to this thread, regarding dual citizenship. Natural-born citizenship is a status that either is, or is not, present at birth. Short of Obama reouncing citizenship of his own volition, there is nothing that could confer that status upon him or take it away, after he came into this world. However, his being born a British citizen and subject by his own admission, governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948, created a dual citizen status that does effectively remove the possibility of Obama having been, as a state of nature, born a citizen without a doubt. So, he's not now and never has been eligible for the office of President.