But they DO explicitly reject the 14th amendment as defining "natural born citizen" and therefore the only remaining definition wins by default.
To restate, if you have a choice between this and that, and the court says it cannot be "this" then the only surviving definition is "that." They define it as "that" because they explicitly rejected "this." (the 14th amendment)
Your reasoning is a contortion of that case.
That said, legal arguments are based on trying to contort things to fit an argument.
It might succeed. It might not.
But your contortion doesn’t make it law at this point. It’s only an argument that might or might not succeed. Great chance that it would be a failure.