"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".
Birthers are a whole lot of fun.