No, it's Congress' job to define it. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule for naturalization. Part of defining who can be naturalized is identifying who doesn't need to be. In other words who is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution addresses for definition how one is defined as a citizen however, and there are two ways to meet that, by naturalization or by being born on U.S. soil and/or by having one or more parents be a U.S. citizen of legitimate age. And there are scotus cases which have been cited as illustrative of these citienship definitions.
Agreed. The Ark case and the Elg decision are two examples where the Supreme Court ruled that the nationality of the parent was irrelevant to whether a person born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
That you continue to try and conflate the fourteenth amendment explanation of citizenship with the as yet unelucidated means to be a natural born citizen is quite telling...
But the means to be a natural born citizen has been elucidated. The definition has been defined and refined by Congress on a number of occasions. Currently it can be found Here, in Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 of the U.S. Code.
...unless one recalls your admission that you play on these threads as a means to feed your twisted desire to incite emotional responses from Freepers, as if you've appointed yourself to be the exposer of freerepublic as populated by emotional, irrational folk.
Nonsense
The opinion of someone whom I hold in high regard:
Carefully consider Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In it, Chief Justice Fuller firmly objected to the notion, seemingly raised (but not truly pursued) by the author of SCOTUS’s majority opinion in that case (Justice Horace Gray), that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil: “[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
The Caselaw of Natural Born Citizen, from Beckwith, freeper:
Natural Born Citizen Chart
People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.
C H A R T at http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart2.htm
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”