You are wrong, Congress has never defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens.
However in Wong Kim Ark, neither of his parents were American citizens and he was ruled to be a natural born citizen.
In the Wong Kim Ark decision the Supreme Court said: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
The Supreme Court does not “override” the Constitution but the Supreme Court does interpret the meaning of the Constitution and their interpretation stands until Congress passes new laws or the Constitution is amended.
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States
(FIRST CONGRESS Session II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104.
The question is whether obama is born of American citizens and shall be considered a Natural Born citizen per the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Congress and the Supreme court has allowed many people to claim citizenship , but this does not mean that it is Natural Born Citizenship? NO. Being an American citizen does not automatically make you a Natural born citizen. obama may have citizenship by code , but he is not a Native born citizen.
When a court makes a ruling in direct opposition to the original intent of the Constitution they are “overruling “ the constitution. A interperation of the constitution is required to follow the original intent. The Indiana court decision totally ignors the original intent.