As we’ve seen in the case of Obama, even if the COLB is legitimate, it doesn’t necessarily establish that he was indeed born in Hawaii.
There’s probably a separate issue here, too. We need to establish not only that the candidate was born in the United States (or as a US citizen, and some proposed laws may fall short by not recognizing that a person can be born overseas to US parents and never have any citizenship but US citizenship, and thus also be native-born), but also that there is no good reason to believe that citizenship meets Constitutional muster and has not been invalidated since then.
From what I’ve read, Obama even if born in the US may still not be eligible to the office of President by virtue of (a) having been born to a father who wasn’t by anybody’s definition a US citizen, or (b) having been legally adopted by Soetoro (and given Indonesian citizenship?)
Or both.
So here we have a candidate who may be ineligible to the office for not just one, but up to three separate reasons.
Well no State law can or will be able to establish what you seem to want it to establish.
I find it unlikely that any U.S. Court will ever rule that a person born a citizen of the USA is not a “natural born citizen”.
There are only two ways of becoming a citizen, and the way you become a citizen determines if you are natural born or naturalized. IMHO.
A “poof of identity and proof of United States citizenship” bill to get on the ballot in Missouri is fine, and they may indeed specify that to be on the ballot for the President one may not be a naturalized citizen - but they cannot take it upon themselves to define what a natural born citizen is.