It does when you keep seeking statutory law to justify it, jamese777. Congress has no authority over anything but naturalization. There are limitations to Amendment per Marbury v. Madison that prevent the 14th Amendment from having done what you insist, as well.
The original intent of the Founders, for the meaning of natural born citizen stands unchanged and unamended as a result.
If you want to argue that original intent was not two citizen parents and born of the soil, then I suggest you familiarize yourself with Blackstone and English common law. There are many problems with taking this tack, but many purported Constitutional "scholars" have done so, so you would have company.
That's the only way you can have a hope of arriving, acceptably, at your seemingly predetermined outcome.
Is the 14th Amendment solely about naturalization? (Hint: what part of “all persons BORN...” don’t you understand?) Was the 14th Amendment promulgated Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states?
The Amendments are no different than the Articles, Sections and Clauses of the Constitution.
Marbury v Madison established the concept of judicial review. The 14th Amendment has been under judicial review hundreds of times in hundreds of different cases. The precedent setting 14th Amendment case with regard to natural born status is United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. The Supreme Court ruled (6-2 with one Justice not participating in the decision) that a child born in the United States to foreign (in this case, Chinese) parents is indeed a born citizen of the United States.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html