Because only in Bizarro World are such individuals ever ACTUALLY natural born Citizens. The purpose of the statute, enacted, This Guy might add, only under Congress’ Constitutional Power of Naturalization, was to naturalize such individuals as fall within the new statute’s ambit.After which they would be recognized as naturalized citizens.
I think the thrust of what you said was that Congress was only given authority to make a rule of naturalization, not a defiition of citizenship at birth. If I am reading it wrongly, please correct me.
If I read it correctly, your position would be wrong as the power to declare a rule of naturalization inevitably must define those who are citizens. If one defines who is born a citizen, one defines the obverse, who is a born an alien. There are only two possible classifications. Defining who is a member of one group identifies all others as members of the second group.
While it is not stated that Congress may define who is born a citizen, it inevitably follows from the grant of power to make a rule of naturalization.
Also, why do you think Congress amended the statute five years later, substantially solely to delete the reference to “natural born”?Because the language was both unnecessary, and misleading.
Constitutional construction abhors surplusage—words that add nothing to the meaning of a provision.
The term "natural born" was eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and "natural" could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.
The provision was defining citizenship with no attempt to address presidential eligibility. The accepted meaning of the term natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at birth. On that definition, there is no difference whatever between being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen.
As Scotus stated, there are two classes of citizen, and two only—naturalized and natural born citizens. Any attempt to invent a third class is fruitless.
Congress can pipe up if it wishes, but when it comes to defining Constitutional terms, such as NBC, SCOTUS since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison has the final word.
SCOTUS need not even utter a By Your Leave to Congress when declaring one of its mere statutes unconstitutional, or one of its Constitutional definitions incorrect.
From Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared it’s superiority over Congress in this regard:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.”