Because it's not. It's a Natural Law concept and thus falls outside positive , or man-made law...and the Constitution IS man-made law.
That's why the term NATURAL born is used, and the citizenship of your NATURAL parents is the requirement. It is not a citizenship AT birth [jus soli], but a citizenship BY birth [jus sanguinis]
-----
Which means you have to look at your “Birther” religion as not quite meeting the lofty status of your “legal degree” from the bubble gum machine you attained it.
No, all it 'means' is that you've finally begun the ad hominem attacks, signaling that you adhere to a 'living' Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.
------
Look Tin Sing
By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. Just a few short years earlier, however, it was a different story:
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
-----
You post on another thread is highly illuminating. You are apparently such a Rubio fan that the question of his eligibility is inconsequential to you.
Enjoy your 'living document' today.....bowing and scraping before the federal government as it spoon-feeds you its 'interpretations' ensures you can never know HOW it will read tomorrow.
“No, all it ‘means’ is that you’ve finally begun the ad hominem attacks”
Let the record reflect that she called me a 2 year old and I called her a unicorn believer.
“signaling that you adhere to a ‘living’ Constitution instead of the Original Intent of the Founders.”
You’re showing your ignorance of the Constitution and our legal system. Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument. It’s real law and how we decide problems that arise in law.
“Look Tin: case By the time that case was heard in 1884, the bastardization of our founding document had already begun. “
Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?