I'm not being argumentative, here. I'm relying upon judicial precedent from the very first Supreme Court decision in this country, Chisholm v. Georgia, upon the very first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, upon the 1803 decision that firmly established the system of checks and balances, Marbury v. Madison, and the dicta of the Supreme Court Justice in that decision, John Marshall. Additionally, I'm relying upon the plain words of John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment.
There is a very clear reason why no statute law and no Acts of Congress deal with the specific term of art "natural-born citizen." That clear reason is that neither statute law nor Acts of Congress can supercede the supreme law of the land enshrined in the Constitution.
It will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish what you mistakenly believe to already be in effect. And, furthermore, from my reading on the matter over the past year and a half, there are even problems with amending the Constitution to this end, again going back to Marbury v. Madison. Going the states route is problematic as well, under the wording of Article V.
So, if you want to argue, argue with someone who hasn't bothered to understand the problem, because the position you're taking relies upon hearsay and faulty interpretation.
Nice screen name, by the way, "Old Devil Dog."