What part of "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." do you not understand?? U.S. law doesn't define what it means to be a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court told us what the definition is: " ... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..."
The Constitution AND statutory law gives us several types of at birth citizens that don't fit this definition. The 14th amendment doesn't contain a requirement of being born to citizen parents. Statutory law allows the children of unwed mothers, for example, to be citizens at birth, even when born out of the country. Do you understand how neither meets either the requirement of being born in the country or of being born to citizen parents??
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Doubts is not the same as a definitive ruling, no wonder you had to butcher the quote to try to get it to say what you wanted it to say!