Well, lets see, the 14th did not address the natural born clause for VP and Pres per se, it was the SC who said it addressed it (reading the minds of the drafters of the 14th). So, if the 14th had no wording repealing the natural born clause to admit any and every kind of citizen born on american soil, then the SC did amend the constitution by implying that the 14th repealed the intention of the natural born clause. The ARK decision (made by the SC) does in fact obliterate the meaning of the natural born clause if your interpretation of the decision is correct. I think the decision in ARK is not clear but that is a fight for another day. If the court, by shelving every case regarding the natural born clause, it does in fact lead one to believe that in ARK they did alter the Constitution by stretching the meaning of the 14th.
“The ARK decision (made by the SC) does in fact obliterate the meaning of the natural born clause if your interpretation of the decision is correct”
No, it would not obliterate the meaning. It would obliterate the original intended effect. The meaning would remain intact. That is, if I’m correct in thinking “natural born citizen” meant citizen from birth.
If the 14th amendment changed what constituted a citizen from birth, then the effect of the natural born clause would automatically be different than it was in 1789. Not through the suspension of the rule of law, but through the legal process of amending the Constitution to have it say things it previously didn’t, e.g. defining what is a citizen from birth for the first time.
Think of it in terms of the interstate commerce clause. The Constitution grants the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. The intended effect may have been to prevent interstate tariffs, but the real effect has been for the government to pass laws governing every human activity that crosses state lines. You may argue that they’ve overstepped their bounds by seeking to control actions that have nothing to do with commerce, but involve something that passed between states at some time in the distant past. There’s a point to be made there. As for the argument that commerce is no longer being “made regular” (which is what the term regulate means, in my understanding) because the government does more than block trade wars, as the framers wanted them to, I don’t see a clear Constitutional issue.
“it does in fact lead one to believe that in ARK they did alter the Constitution by stretching the meaning of the 14th.”
They might have. It all depends on what you take “under the jurisdiction thereof” to mean. But not, again, the intended effect the framers had in mind but did not bother to achieve by writing down explicitly what they wanted.