[so_real]

We do have statute that defines "citizen at birth". What we lack is statute that defines "natural born citizen". Why? Because Congress does not possess the enumerated power to alter the Constitution except through the amendment process. An amendment could be written to redefine "natural born citizen" from Article II, or "treason" from Article III, or "republican form of government" from Article IV, etc. But these changes in definition cannot be legislated outside the amendment process; the Congress cannot "amend by statute". As such, regular legislation with regard to citizenship is restricted to establishing uniform rules of naturalization. Ergo, a citizen who requires statute to enjoy citizenship is not naturally a citizen ... is not a natural born citizen.

[John Valentine]

You are correct that a statute cannot be used to amend the Constitution. But statutes are used all the time to give effect to Constitutional mandates. We have hundreds os statutes and hundreds of thousands of federal regulations, all ostensibly enacted and promulgated under the authority of the Constitution.

I would argue and I have argued that there is nothing in the statutes dealing with nationality that acts to amend or alter the plain words of the Constitution.

But you are just plain wrong when you argue that the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ as used in the Consitution is settled or clear. It never has been that, ever.