Dan, I laughed, a lot, when I read your post there.
Although I could take this in a far more absurd direction than you already did just to make a point, instead I will say, that would indeed be democracy & if the women then killed the men to protect their chastity, that would be more.. mobish.. I belive you are using "mob rules" as synonomous to "tyrany of the majority" (if you don't know this term, look up John Stewart Mills essay on liberty) which is a known shortall of any democratic system and I don't know what point stating that makes... we actualy do not have a democracy, a representative democracy is not quite the same, and our representative democracy was created in part to safeguard from such shortfalls as tyrany of the majority. So the real question is, would the vote of the people to have a presedent not born on US soil consitute tyrany of the majority if allowed, or relflect a shift in the will of the people, theirfor charging the lawmakes who theoretically represent and are empowered by the people with the respocibility of updating the law, or at least construcing amendments to be voted on to determine the issue seperatly.
Usualy tyrany of the majority only applys to things so agrevious as to be unquestionably wrong (such as rape...) as to be clear that even if the will of the majority legally permissifyed the action, based on other criteria it would still be morraly incorrect. So then your example poses the question, is there ever any circumstance in which the act of rape is morraly permissable? If and only if you can answer that question with a resounding No would the perpetration of this action warrent the classification tyrany of the majority.
From Mills on Liberty, "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism" (2) I do not belive allowing a US presedent to be elected and inogurated who was not born on US soil does violate that limit of legitimate interference such as legalizing rape would!
I'd like to know by your methodology, when sailors stranded at sea draw straws to see who will be killed and eaten to enable the rest prolonged life and a shot at salvation, and then proceed to kill one of their companions, even though after the lottery the loser protests, is that "mob rues" or "democracy?" This hypothetical, instead of rape, poses the quesion is it ever morraly permissable to murder?
Have you ever seen the childs movie "The Point." From your quote "the law is the law" I think you could take away meaningful insight from it...
anyhow, thats a logical fallay -"begging the question," (1) or.. avoiding adressing the issue at hand, should the man who won the vote, popular and electoral, be permitted to be presedent? moreover, A=A, An apples an apple! convinced? no kidding. (would you eat a rotten apple just beause its an apple? maybe if someone left out the premis that the apple was rotten when they set out to persuade you to eat it...)
Cited...
1)
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
2)
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm