[RegulatorCountry]

They never used the term natural born citizen again ever. So if you want to go by that, then no one is a natural born citizen and therefore no one can serve as President.

Congress never again enacted statute law attempting to revise, extend or otherwise modify the term, because it was and remains a specific term in the Constitution, which Congress is not empowered to alter in any way, due to being limited to matters of immigration and naturalization by the Constitution itself.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and statute law is the practical, day to day application of the Constitution. In light of this, your statement that no one is a natural-born citizen under original intent is just bizarre.

You're no doubt saying this because no statute law deals with anything other than immigration and naturalization, which is correct per the powers enumerated to Congress.

The rights and obligations of citizenship, of any form, are absolutely identical in every instance, with the exception of one thing, an elected office, identified as such in the Constitution, which is the supreme law.

The meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" has been spelled out by our very first Supreme Court Justice, both before and after Ratification of the Constitution, and by the author of the 14th Amendment. These two alone should be persuasive to the point of definitive, for those who actually want to acknowledge an originalist definition. But, these two are certainly not the only examples to provide.

Again, and I cannot state this emphatically enough, enumeration of powers prevents Congress from ever having done what so many want to claim has been done.

Why is this so difficult? I've concluded that it's not difficult for those who don't want to obfuscate out of a desire to change the requirement.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" has been spelled out by our very first Supreme Court Justice, both before and after Ratification of the Constitution, and by the author of the 14th Amendment."

You have cited many sources. Let's deal with them one at a time:

John Jay: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

This was a letter John Jay wrote to Washington before the Constitution was ratified. Nowhere in it does he define what a natural born citizen is.

You cited two Supreme court cases (Chisolm V. Georgia and Marbury vs. Madison). Neither of these cases have to do with defining a natural born citizen or the definition of a natural born citizen.

You cited the 14th amendment.
14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where in that amendment is the term used of Natural born citizen? It's not. It says plainly, citizens of the United States. Coincidentally, the same term that is used in the Naturalization Act of 1795 you cited as changing the term:

"foreign-born children of American parents shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

This is the same term that is used in the current immigration and naturalization law. They are citizens of the United States at birth. So if you are going to cite the 14th amendment as saying people who were born here are natural born citizens, then the same term that is applied there is also applied to children outside the U.S. to parents who are American citizens.

Please, when you start citing cases and facts, you need to research what you are actually citing.

"Why is this so difficult?"

I'm asking the same question myself. John McCain is qualified under the constitution to be President.