Two questions I note you did not address.
1. A child born to citizen parents on US soil, taken overseas after a few months, raised there until age 35, returns and runs for president at age 49. Same issues, Constitutionally eligible. Should the Constitution be changed for this situation? Did the Founders err?
2. Are you one of those “living Constitution” people? One who wants to “modernize” without formal amendment because of modern changes - in this case more and faster global travel?
1. A child born to citizen parents on US soil, taken overseas after a few months, raised there until age 35, returns and runs for president at age 49. Same issues, Constitutionally eligible. Should the Constitution be changed for this situation? Did the Founders err?
I thought I addressed it. Perhaps not to the extent that you were interested, so I'll elaborate. No, the Constitution should not be changed for this situation. It was the intent of the founders that the citizenry itself should be the final arbiter on the loyalty\fitness question. Now before you assert that is what occurred in 2008, I will argue that the citizenry has long been misinformed about what is the correct Article II meaning of "natural born citizen", so in the presence of faulty information, the citizenry was unable to make an informed judgement. Most people believe that it is the job of the States to determine eligibility, and they cannot conceive that someone could get through the process without this having been accomplished and the individual accepted.
Little do they know that all 50 state's election officials not only failed to do their job, but they don't even understand correctly what their job is!
2. Are you one of those “living Constitution” people? One who wants to “modernize” without formal amendment because of modern changes - in this case more and faster global travel?
No, absolutely not. That is why I find it offensive for people to argue that the 14th amendment changed article II. A common principle of legal interpretation is that a subsequent law cannot amend or repeal a previous law unless it is explicitly stated that it do so.
My understanding is that the meaning of the Constitution is the exact same today as it was in 1787 unless expressly changed by amendment. There are a few areas where the details referenced might change, (such as the difference between flintlocks and Modern rifles, or Newspapers and Television transmitters) but the meaning and intent is still consistent with the original meaning and intent. (That the people have "arms" and "freedom of Speech and the Press." )