[thecodont]

There is another interesting aspect to McCain’s situation and that is his parents were abroad under orders of the sovereign - doing the sovereign’s bidding.

"Under the jurisdiction of the United States" I believe would be the qualifying principle here, and yes, SCOTUS would have to clarify it. I think they'd have to look at the repealed 1790 law that stated children born abroad of U.S. citizen parents would be considered as "natural born" -- but didn't that law NOT include specifically mention of people abroad in the service of the United States? I think the intent would be that anyone under the "sovereign reach" of the United States would be considered as "under its jurisdiction" as much as the ones born on U.S. soil.

"Born on U.S. soil," however, is a distinction clear enough for the layman to understand.

Wiki talk page argument on what "natural born citizen" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANatural-born_citizen

[Author2]

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence increased from two to five years in the United States, and introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which create...

. There is no mention of NOT granting "NATURAL BORN STATUS" in the 1795 Naturalization Act to a child born outside the U.S.. Checked several references ( Wikipedia, National Archives, ect.) and they all said basically the same thing.