Call me old fashion, but I don't think you can change the meaning of constitutional requirements set in 1787 by laws enacted in.
Oh, interesting point. The statute doesn't define the law? It's adopted US Code. I'm stepping out of my range of knowledge here. I'm not an attorney, but I thought the US Code was 'the law' and binding in court?
I can see where this needs to be cleared up, once and for all.
Federal law normally applies but for one thing. Constitutional law is the Supreme law of the land.
You cannot enact any federal statute that is in conflict with the Constitution.
For example, let us say Congress decided to define "arms" as slingshots. Well we all know the word "arms" does not mean slingshots, but if they have the power to redefine the meaning of words, they can make it mean that.
It is no different in changing the meaning of "natural citizen". You can't do that. It means something specific. That meaning was set in 1776, and congress does not have the power to change it.
Now they can decide who is a "citizen", because they have the power to naturalize anyone they so choose. What they cannot do is create a new definition for "natural citizen." The constitution cannot be amended by statute. It requires a vote of 3/4ths of the state legislatures to amend it.
Thank God that it cannot be modified so easily, or our right to keep and bear arms would have been long gone.