It is a basic principle of a common-law legal system that if something is not forbidden by law, it is allowed. If someone is a citizen from birth, 35 years old and has been a resident of the US for 14 years, then their other characterisics aren't relevant- they're qualified to be President.
I also doubt Congress could legally make an amendment defining it to include dual-citizens even if they wanted to.
There is no legal or Constitutional limit on what can go into a Constitutional amendment.
First, common law is not Constitutional law. Second, it says natural born citizen, not citizen from birth. Third common law throws doubt onto whether Obama is a citizen at all.
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
Minor vs Happersett... Perkins vs Elg, the father was a citizen at the time...In Wong Kim Ark, a distinction is made between natural born citizens and citizens with parents who are both residents, living and working here. I do believe I've shown you this before.
For you to twist this around to mean that he might therefore be a natural born citizen is completely unreasonable, and to then take it to the Supreme Court is really a waste of time, as the answer is obvious. But, maybe if we're lucky, SCOTUS will define it once and for all, and maybe we can then start getting rid of disloyal socialists, communists, bankers, "philanthropic" foundations, and whomever else have been attacking this country since being formed.
Additionally, it is Obama who is making a claim that he is qualified, and has yet to provide proof he is even a citizen, let alone qualified for the presidency. One forged Certification of Live Birth posted online, in a state where one could be born elsewhere up to year (clarification of which is not shown on the certification), of a minor aged disloyal citizen mother who might not have been able to pass her citizenship even if relevant, of a father who isn't even a naturalized citizen, who did not take up residence here nor even try to become a US citizen, is not proof, and is more indicative of fraud than anything else.
And yet you take this to mean he is a natural born citizen. What country are you loyal to?
And amendments can be found to be unconstitutional, or declared null and void.