The relevant law —as I have seen it put-—when this person was born—wherever he was born— seems to have made the age of the parent-be it father or mother—male or female quite relevant.If that age stipulation has been removed it seems logical to me that the law —as written —at the time of birth ought still be the governing factor....and again the question is not is this person a citizen —but natural born,i.e. born of two parents who were themselves citizens.If the mother,by law had to be a certain age to confer citizenship —and the father never was a citizen then the child by law ought not be considered a citizen.There are other credible questions yet unanswered as to citizenship status that as a whole lead me to conclude under our written Constitution that person residing in the White House is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
Id est is not appropriate here. It refers to an uncontested explanation of the meaning of a term. As you are no doubt aware, the meaning of "natural born" is not uncontested, it is highly debated.
My personal opinion is that natural born is an alternate way of saying citizen at birth.