Mark Levin may be misguided and uninformed, but you are just an idiot.
One of the dumbest but oft repeated birther truisms disregards that the Constitution itself is an act of law.
And it does not presume to define "natural born citizen" because the founders knew that no act of man could change what is Natural Law.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress shall make no law defining citizenship of any sort they choose?
Is it really worth my time to show you? I CAN show you, but I don't perceive you as having the competence to understand it. I'm not going to bother looking it up. You look it up if you want. It's under congresses power to naturalize.
Congress has been making laws defining citizenship and retroactively granting citizenship to various classes of people since the Founding.
They have been using their enumerated power of "naturalization", which means "to make like Natural." Note this is not the same thing as being natural, it is making something "like natural." It is the legal equivalent of adoption.
The key problem with birthers is their utter incapability to view history linearly and recognize the state of the law as it applies to the present.
I would say that this is the problem with you folk. The fact that there were several hundreds of thousands of British Loyalists before, during and After the Revolutionary war, and who did not become American Citizens, though they were born in the United States, is a massive amount of evidence that your theory is incorrect, yet here you are trying to make us believe this nonsense because you are incapable of recognizing the state of the law as it applied to the past.
Since you scoffed at the 14th, George Edwin Taylor, born to a slave father, ran for president in 1904. A whole slew of candidates who did not become president failed to meet the birther definition. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama both fail to meet the birther requirement.
The People in Chester Arthur's time knew very well that a President must be a "natural citizen". They just did not know at the time that Chester Arthur was not. Now that Barack has come along, people have simply forgotten what this seldom studied and seldom used component of Constitutional law really meant.
Perhaps Breckinridge Long (1916) can explain it to you, though I very much doubt it. You have a mental density that is likely impenetrable by facts or logic.
Later people. That’s all the ignorance/stupidity I can put up with for today.
This requires a double LOL! I don't need the position of birthers explained by other historical birthers. I understand the birther argument. I understand where and why you derive your position. But I reject it wholely just as history has rejected it. The very article you quote is about a Charles Evans Hughes who ran for president. The fact that your distinguished mouthpiece happened to be working for the Wilson campaign and also happened to ironically quote Chester Arthur who failed to meet the author's own definition of natural born is additionally funny.
Don't you find it odd that the campaign manager for the sitting president was unable to use your very argument to disqualify an opponent almost a century ago? You can call me all the names in the book and sleep well knowing that your are "right", whilst I will sleep soundly knowing that no one gives a sh!t.