Too bad you’ve read the Constitution, yet know nothing.
As I said if you think the constitution states you have to have US citizen parents to be natural born please show the clause to me. In fact the constitution states that you do not have to have citizen parents because there were no US citizens when it was written therefore that requirement was left out. The only one of us who knows nothing about the constitution is you. Once again, I urge you to read it and this time try to understand what it says, maybe take a reading comprehension class or two.
That's a nonsensical comeback if there's ever been one. Got an argument instead of an insult?
The Constitution is the law of the land. Nothing in the Constitution defines "natural-born citizen," much less defines it as requiring both parents to be citizens.
That means the term, legally, would have to be defined in federal statute and/or federal court case. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision defined NBC -- it said anyone born in the US of parents who were under American jurisdiction (not foreign diplomats & not foreign military at war with the US) was an NBC -- but didn't specifically address Presidential eligibility. (Wong wasn't running for anything; he just wanted to get back into the country after visiting his parents in China.)
Someone who wanted to argue that, e.g., Jindal wasn't eligible to be president would have to argue that, although he's a natural-born citizen according to Wong, he's not really a natural-born citizen in the sense intended by Article III. Have fun with that.
You can argue until the cows come up about NBC requiring thus-and-such according to de Vattel, or about what the Founders thought it meant, etc. None of that has the force of law. What matters is what the law says.