And no, what was meant by the Constitution was not officially changed. A statute has no control over what is meant by a Constitutional clause.
The only question is what the founders meant by it. The Court in Minor v. Happersett clearly indicated that only two classes were considered. One with "no doubt" and the other having doubts.
The court system has not, and the INS is irrelevant to this discussion.
The only thing relevant is what the founders intended by the clause.
If you understood the information from Marbury v. Madison you would understand that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
You would also understand that a Clause of the Constitution can not be left without effect.
That is your fault for not learning.
Never said it did.
This is you not understanding what was said.
The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett recognized two classes of citizen birth, one that is without a doubt naturally born, the other having doubts if it is.
They wouldn't and couldn't go further to settle the issue as it was not before the Court for consideration.
The class that has doubts as to whether they are naturally born citizens, is covered by the 14th Amendment as simply "citizens".
So of the two recognized by the court, the only one left as natural born citizens are those born of US citizen parents on US soil, as the other is covered by the 14th.
Look. I am not forcing you to engage in this debate.
If you do not like having to deal with lengthy replies or rehashing what you think you already hashed, then stop replying.
It is that simple.