Well, help me out.
The Constitution qualifies federal elected officials in two different ways: those who are "citizens" and those who are "natural born citizens". The latter term applies to only the Commander-in-Chief and his immediate successor the VP, just two people out of the entire nation.
As we know, the second term, NBC, was prompted out of concern that the head of our armed forces would not hold any parentage form of possible allegiance to a foreign government say, for example, England or France.
Also, since the founders knew it was not possible in the near future for a candidate to have been born in the U.S. they were just forming, they provided that any citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution could serve as Commander.
How do you think the founders distinguished between the two classes?
The Founding Fathers mention naturalized citizens in the parts regarding Representatives and Senators so it is clear that they understood the concept of naturalized citizens.
But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that our legal system relies on court-generated precedents as well as laws and the Constitution.
Given everything that has happened so far in this area, I think that a new law or even a Constitutional amendment would be needed to change the way we adjudicate natural-born citizenship, and Obama, Harris, etc., are NBCs.