I agree, in that it’s apparently confused you to no end.
I’d have to say that if the Constitution has some unique definition of a term that is everywhere else defined by statute, then the Constitutional definition of that term should be explicitly given in the Constitution. In this particular case, there’s no reason to say that the natural-born citizenship mentioned in Article II is any different than the natural-born citizenship defined elsewhere.
I don’t find that argument particularly persuasive. It’s like saying that there’s no reason why Congress’ interpretation of “equal” in the 1950’s should be any different from the 14th Amendment’s actual definition. There are many instances of the Constitution being misinterpreted for decades before the Supreme Court got around to correcting Congress (or itself). The Bill of Rights itself wasn’t really used as we know it today until the 20th century.
Why might Congress be wrong in this instance? A few reasons. Perhaps they’ve extended the concept of jus soli beyond that envisioned by the framers. Perhaps the framers never intended for jus sanguinis to satisfy the Article II provision for reasons of cultural upbringing–indeed, there is a (weak) argument that Congress has no constitutional authority to even grant jus sanguinis citizenship. There are a number of other reasons, well-summarized in the legal literature. None of them are compelling, IMHO. But that isn’t really the point.
That’s the way I see it. “Natural-born” is generally understood to mean that you have been a citizen since the moment you were born, as opposed to having been naturalized sometime after your birth. If someone wants to say that it means something different, then the onus is on them to prove their case, not on the rest of us to defend the status quo.
As for the OP, I’d love to see Arnie as president. I think he’d do a good job. However, he is clearly ineligible, and I absolutely do not think we should amend the Constitution just to accommodate one guy. In a government, nobody is irreplaceable.
That the candidate filing the petitions is qualified for the office he seeks. A foreigner or underage person who files petitions to run for POTUS is misrepresenting himself to the voters. The SOS would have a positive duty to refuse such person’s petitions.
Ok, but everyone keeps bringing up the Canal-zone thing, as if it was important. I assume you’re an expert here and it’s not important then.