The law is based on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment which is a corollary to Article II, Section 1. They fit together nicely: anyone who is a Citizen of the United States At Birth under the 14th Amendment is also a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1.
As a judge in Pennsylvania ruled in March in a trial on the merits: “Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,”—Elliott v Cruz,
Nope. Not even a constitutional amendment can redefine the concept of a "natural citizen" as informed by the natural law philosophy the founders relied upon to create the nation. It makes as much sense as redefining "pi."
No, "Natural citizen" is a concept independent of modification. It is in effect, a "natural law" constant, no different from the speed of light or the charge on an electron.
Only liberal sophists think they get away with tampering with natural law. They only end up making a mess of it. Again, I point out "gay" marriage.
What we have nowadays is a cohort of judges and lawyers who are too ignorant to understand that they don't understand something, and too stupid to realize that they should.
Our judicial system has become the perfect storm of kookery, but with all the trappings of "authority."
It would be rather odd if Anchor babies, born on U.S. soil of two alien parents are Natural Born Citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, but a child born of a U.S. citizen on foreign would not be. There are good reasons that these rulings have been consistent thus far.