Thanks for the reminder, but you’re preaching to the choir, lol.
Remember, I’m the “kook” who insisted that the Constitution alone determined natural born citizenship, with the Congress enumerated to naturalization only, to the shrill dismay of the good gentleman from Kansas with whom you also had a somewhat less bombastic exchange, last week.
If that makes me a “kook,” I guess I’m still a kook, since that’s the way our Constitution works, and that’s the way the power enumerated to Congress works.
I’ve been trying, with limited success, to drive home the point that the term is not a mystery, that there has been no automatic need for statutory law to define it, and that in fact statutory law cannot define it. Natural born citizen being a “term of art,” “evident in the writing,” and etcetera.
No law passed by Congress can define the term, but it's also important to recognize that the Constitution assumes we should know what it means. That "we" don't will mean that eventually a Court will have to decide what it meant in 1787.