[TheCipher]

And even if he WAS born in Kenya, the issue is complex.

Not complex at all. Here is the law:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

She did not live in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 before he was born. If he was born overseas, not only would he not have "natural born" citizenship, he would not have US citizenship.

[Mariebl]

Not complex at all. Here is the law:

The issue is very complex, because the law you cite is simply a law, made by Congress. So, there could be a lot of arguments about whether Congress had power to interpret the Constitution to this degree.

To put it another way--what if Congress passed a law saying that the meaning of 'to keep and bear arms' was--that you had a right to join the National Guard, and have a rifle, as long as you kept it locked up in the National Guard armory when you weren't officially on duty. I think there's a lot of people on FR who wouldn't agree that that law was valid.

So, what makes us ao willing to accept another law that defines the meaning of 'natural-born citizen'? Wishful thinking, as I see it.