“I deal in the facts.”
I wish you did, but you do not.
“The facts are that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen issue.”
Yes it does, it empowers Congress to define who is a citizen, under what circumstances, and when. See Section 5.
“That was not the intent”
The intent is not relevant. What the 14th Amendment SAYS is relevant. The intent is only considered if the text is not clear.
” and the words natural born citizen do not appear in the 14th amendment.”
But the 14th Amendment gives Congress unlimited power to define citizenship. So yes, in effect, “natural born citizen” is in the 14th Amendment.
“Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate enforcement of the 14th amendment”
which is the definition of citizenship.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to implement citizenship.
Whenever an issue is unclear, that is when implementing requires definition.
You cannot implement without clearing up any uncertainty.
“but not the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility which is separate and apart from the 14th amendment.”
SAYS WHO?
That’s not how the Constitution is read, applied, or interpreted by the courts.
When Congress wields authority delegated to it under the Constitution, that is treated VERY BROADLY — always.
So if Congress defines natural born citizen — which the 1st Congress did in 1790 (including 20 members of congress who helped write the Constitution) — no court will dispute Congress’ vast power to do so.
The Supreme Court overrules Congress all the time. Where have you been?
Your premise regarding the 14th amendment is just wrong. I cannot help you further. You don’t sound like a lawyer or you would know that Section 5 of the 14th amendment does not give Congress the right to define who is eligible for President.