I think it is.
The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.
Do you think a statute could require that a person be 40 years of age or only 30 in order to be President? Of course not. The enumeration of requirements to be President takes the issue out of the hands of Congress.
“The Constitution explicitly states the requirements to be elected President. One may not add, remove, or modify any of that without a Constitutional amendment.”
I think constitutional eligibility is a completely separate matter from the issue we’re discussing.
Naturally, I can’t disagree with the essence of your statement, but bear in mind that the Framers didn’t craft the sort of airtight document that lawmakers of today would. They granted only enough power to the federal government, for it to perform its prescribed duties, and (per the 10th Amendment) left the rest to the states and to The People.
We must assume that, in matters such as the one before us now, it’s the people who must decide on Mrs Clinton’s eligibility, in light of the referenced statute.
That statute is a common sense rule for those entrusted with our nation’s most sensitive information. Any government employee who violates the provisions of part (a) should be subject to the penalties and restrictions in part (b).