It is you who is committing the error of believing that the Constitution is something that needs “interpretation.” And in the process you are appear to be imputing meanings to it that it nowhere contains.
The Constitution requires that NO ONE but a natural born citizen may serve as commander in chief. You don’t need to interpret that, do you? The words and their meaning are as clear today as the day they were written. No one but someone with the natural undivided loyalty innate in a person born in the US to parents owing no other national allegiances.
Come on, only apologists for perfidy claim to find ambiguity in these words of art.
And, in fact, today in an offense to common sense and Constitutional law, we have precisely the situation forbidden by the Constitution. The particular individual must therefor stand as a usurper, for he is one in fact and law.
What can be done? As a practical matter, it seems very little. But that doesn’t mean we must need become defeatist. We can resist, and we shall, until he is shamed and removed.
No, I'm stating that the "natural born citizen" reference in Section 1 Article 2 has never been defined. It is those arguing for a de Vattel "interpretation" of the phrase that are imputing meanings that don't exist in the Constitution.