[browardchad]

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.

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.

[John Valentine]

The Constitution is not a dictionary. It contains many hundreds of words that are not “defined” within the four corners of the document. These words are not defined because their meaning was clear and unambiguous to all, and remain so except for those who are, as I put it, apologists for perfidy.

You sir, I must deem to fall within this category.

[El Gato]

No, I'm stating that the "natural born citizen" reference in Section 1 Article 2 has never been defined.

Of course it, just not in the context of a Supreme Court decision concerning eligibility to the office of President. Not surprising since their has never been such a case

It's been defined in dicta several times, it's been defined on the floor of Congress, almost 150 years ago. It's just that some "modern" folks would like to redefine it to fit their needs, or their ideology, or both.