To legally define a term requires the legal authority to do so. Once the Supreme Court defines a Constitutional term, that event absolutely denies any authority of any other court or legislature to change it.
The Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in Minor vs. Happerset, even stating that there was "no doubt" regarding is correctness. Therefore, any statement by anyone else who is not the Supreme Court that contradicts the definition provided by the Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so, and is legally null and void.
The Supreme Court has changed its mind many times. Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, for example.
The Supreme Court defined "natural born citizen" in Minor vs. Happerset, even stating that there was "no doubt" regarding is correctness. Therefore, any statement by anyone else who is not the Supreme Court that contradicts the definition provided by the Supreme Court lacks the authority to do so, and is legally null and void.
First off, the definition of NBC in Minor was dicta; Ms. Minor was not seeking to become President.
Second, Minor says there was no doubt that someone born in the U.S. to two citizen parents was a NBC and there was doubt as to whether someone born in the U.S. to alien parents was. That was not a definitive decision.
Third, several earlier Supreme Court decisions (see the footnotes in Judge Malihi's decision) had said that anyone born in the U.S. was a NBC, regardless of parentage.
Fourth, later cases are very much to the contrary; see Wong, and the cases cited in the Congressional Research Service's report.
Fifth, and most importantly, what you or I think is "null and void" doesn't matter; as I said above, "the law" means what the courts will rule tomorrow, and no court will say anything except that "Natural Born Citizen" means a citizen who wasn't naturalized.