There are a lot of things in the Constitution that are implied but not explicitly stated. For example, the dates on which the President and Congress are to be sworn in are specified in the Constitution. But no mention of whether the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar (or for the matter, the Jewish or Islamic calendars) were being referenced. It was understood that the calendar in common use at the time was being referenced. Likewise, explicit mention of parents was not necessary when using a concept that people of the time were familiar with.
You’re arguing that, because no mention of parents is made, that a person’s parentage was considered to be irrelevant. But we know that’s not true, because for most of our nation’s history, simply being born here was not sufficient to grant a person citizenship, let alone natural born citizenship. The idea that being born here from illegal alien parents automatically made one a citizen, was an idea that was foreign to the framers. In other words, parentage effected someone’s citizenship status and was always understood to be relevant, regardless of whether it was explicitly stated or not. It was understood that parentage effected whether or not someone born on U.S. soil was a natural born citizen because that was part of its definition.
President Obama wining TWO terms has conclusively disproved your theory. As a lifelong engineer, I learned early to rely on actual results than opinions or theory. In case you are not aware, Both Obama’s fathers, natural and adopted, were never US citizens. Which means the powers that be did not agree with your opinions about parents of presidential candidates.
Again, I prefer candidates who are real conservatives, intelligent, have great verbal skills, than people like Pelosi & Biden who have many generations of US citizenships. I could not care less if parents were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate. I only care about quality of the candidate herself or himself.