You’re reading too much in to my statement; not “changed” but explicitly delineated.
In 1875 in Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court said that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”
I was suggesting that a possible “elsewhere” might be a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a president.
All we need to do is look at what has occurred in the absence of such clarifying legislation.
I dunno, "delineating" it differently from what it has always been sounds like a "change" to me.
In 1875 in Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court said that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”
I was suggesting that a possible “elsewhere” might be a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a president.
Which again sounds to my ear as if you think the meaning is fungible. I regard it as an absolute, like the meaning of "pi"; a fundamental constant, not subject to redefinition.