I don't need to do that. Your position appears to be "whatever it's definition, it can be redefined by later statute" and that is simply incorrect on the face of it.
If you believe that subsequent laws can change the meaning of legal terms of art used by the US Constitution, I don't see where we have any basis for an exchange of thoughts on the matter.
I see the constitution as rock solid, only changeable by amendment, not as a "living constitution" that can be changed by simply reinterpreting what words mean.
I can show a reasonable person where the term "natural born citizen" came from, but they have to be willing to look.
You mean you can't.
Your position appears to be "whatever it's definition, it can be redefined by later statute" and that is simply incorrect on the face of it.
How can statute redefine it if it wasn't defined in the Constitution in the first place? Since the Constitution doesn't then statutes have to define it, for the purpose of identifying those who need to acquire citizenship through naturalization from those who acquire citizenship at birth, AKA natural-born citizens.
If you believe that subsequent laws can change the meaning of legal terms of art used by the US Constitution, I don't see where we have any basis for an exchange of thoughts on the matter.
And when there is no clear single definition of the term to begin with? You yourself mentioned the question of jus soli vs. jus sanguinus. Since the Constitution doesn't define it then Congress must, which they have through legislation over the years.
I see the constitution as rock solid, only changeable by amendment, not as a "living constitution" that can be changed by simply reinterpreting what words mean.
Do you now?
I can show a reasonable person where the term "natural born citizen" came from, but they have to be willing to look.
Ah if only the founders had included your opinion as the definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution.