[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.

[TheCipher]

We are not talking about “natural born “ status with the law. It is about passing on US citizenship. Go and check the Supreme Court cases dating back to the mid 1800’s. The Supreme Court is very clear in stating that Congress has the power to define how US citizenship is passed on to those who are not born on US soil. Even if the law were to be overturned today, it wouldn't matter. At the time , the only way he could have gained citizenship was through naturalization. Therefore he would be a naturalized citizen. The Constitution is VERY clear in that respect. No Naturalized citizen is eligible for the office of President.