Maybe I should have replaced ‘gives’ with ‘recognizes’. It recognized that instead of being a ‘naturalized citizen’, he was a ‘natural born citizen’. The Constitution doesn’t forbid changing legal definitions or simple standards. Ex Post Facto refers to criminal law, making something a crime that wasn’t and retroactively enforcing it. Calder v. Bull case of 1798, Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws, applying it solely to criminal cases, not civil cases.
Referring back to the Constitution, there is no such legalistic distinction. You're presuming that these categories exist to the exclusion of any other.
Ex Post Facto refers to criminal law, making something a crime that wasn’t
***Then it would not be allowed here, because zer0bama committed fraud.