Easy. Nothing to it, and in facts backs up Wong!
From you:
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
WHAT THAT is saying, is that no “statute” can define what natural born citizen is, because the Constitution is where that term is contained, and you can’t AMEND the Constitution by statute. Obvious. Congress can’t pass a law to Amend or interpret the Constitution. If they could, we would all have to run for the hills! Congress could decide that a “militia” is the national guard and take our guns. Changes to the Constitution or interpretations thereof are by Amendments or judicial interpretation. And Thank God it is!
parsy, who figured there was more to it.
I’m not following you. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen. U.S. Code (Title 8) 1401, which is a statute, lists everyone who is a citizen (and therefore not a naturalized citizen, but a native citizen). 1401 specifically lists those born abroad to two citizen parents as being citizens (native citizens, right?). Yet the Foreign Affairs manuals stipulates that just because they’re citizens doesn’t mean they are necessarily NBC eligible for the presidency. So the State Dept seems to be saying that not all citizens (native, since they’re not naturalized) are inherently eligible for Constitutional purposes.