Did you read my comment about Article I, Section 8 U.S. Constitution. This is an enumerated power of the Congress and has never been challenged by the courts, much left ever found to outside the role of Congress
Of course, you are really talking about the definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause included in the qualifications of the President. I'm sure you know that the founders did not supply a definition. They relied on English Common Law and then granted the power to Congress to rule on naturalization. They did so in 1790, including rules on natural born citizens.
Since Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court has interpreted the language of the Constitution, and the Congress since its first session have passed laws to implement instructions of the Constitution. The ship has sailed on the basis of your outrage.
The birthers, of course, have collected an impressive inventory of SCOTUS decisions that, in their minds, prove their case. Most of them don't hold up under scruinity. One of my favorites in Minor v. Happersett which was a case about women's suffrage, so the decision had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility, but since the rationale section of the opinion included discussion of natural born citizen, it became a keystone of the birther argument in 2008 and again this year. Unfortunately for them, that case is useless for their purpose.
The Supreme Court has never considered the specific issue of Presidential Eligibility, although they have tackled a number of issues over foreign born citizens in various circumstances. They have taken positions on the facts, the law, and the Constitution; but they have never found that the Congress did not have the power that exercised, and have never found that the Department of State has no authority to administer these laws.
The only route that is likely to satisfy your issue is for the Supreme Court to consider the Constitutionality of USC 8, Section 1401 and decide that the Congress has no power to define citizenship by birth. I don't think that will ever happen.
That the "natural born citizen" language for presidential eligibility is much in dispute. There are conflicting authorities at the highest level and the majority of them, as well as that of many Framers, denies the influence of the English Common law as having determined the choice of language in question. Americans, in particular, are not "subjects" of a monarch. That concept was rejected, particularly in the War of 1812.
The 1790 Act was repealed, specifically because of commentary at the time that it was not constitutional. Because of that criticism in 1795 the 1790 Act was revised and replaced, removing the language about "natural born citizen" by removing the word "natural." Through numerous subsequent revisions for over a 150 years it was never restored to the original, much criticized use, of the natural born citizen phrase.
You clearly do not understand Marbury v. Madison. The power to interpret the meaning of the words in the Constitution has, forever since, been applied by analyzing the intent of the Framers at the time that they wrote the Constitution, never by analyzing the intent of Congress in passing law as if Congress could define what the Framers meant.
You chose to ignore the language not only of Waite in Minor v. Happersett but of Marshall in The Venus and Story in Shanks v. Dupont and in his authoritative treatise as well as that of many others of the Framers and the legal authorities of that time. While the issue has not been definitely decided by the SCOTUS, when and if they do decide it, they will not decide based upon anything said in the United States Code but rather upon what was intended by the choice of the actual language used in Article II, not upon your cock-a-mamie idea that a statute can define what is in the Constitution. Neither Marbury v. Madison nor any other authority supports that notion.