I would suggest that the definition is in fact clear, rather we need to make people understand that the definition is clear, and likewise WHY it is clear.
The concept of being a "natural" citizen is relatively simple. It is a case in which citizenship is inherent in ones nature and requiring no act of law.
Without the 14th amendment *AND* the Cable act, Obama would not even be a citizen, and that is only *IF* he was actually born in this country. ( A circumstance yet to be demonstrated beyond doubt.)
Actually, I agree with you but there are a significant amount of people who don’t. (Hence this thread) They maintain that natural born means something different. Unfortunately, because there has been no judicial intervention, their argument seems to have a kind of merit. So now, we are in danger of not only having a second term of the Bama but if Romney chooses Marco Rubio, having a running mate on the republican side who also does not meet the natural born qualification to be president. This is the crises.
Yes Obama’s place of birth hence even his regular citizenship remains in doubt. We still need his original birth certificate as well as so many other documents. BUT how do you expect we will see them if the courts cower and do not order discovery? Remember the term “Controlling legal authority”?