The 14th does not rewrite "natural born citizen" because "natural born citizen" is an act of God, and cannot be overwritten by a naturalization act like the 14th amendment.
God forgot to sign it so that does not count. You forgot to write it in red ink, so it's at best the word of doG.
The Constitution is written in terms of the English common law. The English judges were not God either.
The Constitution contains no definition of natural born citizen and never has.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511/text
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
[Excerpt]
"Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;"
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
No it isn't. There is no provision in English law that allows a Republic. English Law is monarchical law, and anything incompatible with monarchy is incompatible with English law.
Feudal laws tying men to the land were all excised from our system.