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.
"Defined in the Constitution" is a dodge. Almost nothing is "defined" *IN* the constitution. It is defined elsewhere, but the point remains, whatever is it's definition, you seem to think it can be changed by statute.
If you think Constitutional terms of art can be redefined by congressional legislation, then you and I have a very different understanding of what the Constitution is.
Since the Constitution doesn't then statutes have to define it,
I very greatly doubt that every single word used in the US Constitution is defined by statute. I am of the opinion that vast majority of the words and terms used in the US constitution are defined by common acceptance and various other written works of the time.
And when there is no clear single definition of the term to begin with?
I think there is a very clear single definition of the term, but it is not in William Rawle's "A view of the Constitution." That is where the nation was misled.
Since the Constitution doesn't define it then Congress must, which they have through legislation over the years.
They cannot retroactively "define" a word which has already been written down with an understood meaning in 1787.
Ah if only the founders had included your opinion as the definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution.
They didn't put very many "definitions" in the Constitution. The people of that era understood the vernacular they used, and saw no need to define words in common usage at the time.
"Treason" is the only term which I remember is defined in the Constitution.
The proper word used in English common law is "subject." I note that they didn't use the word "subject".