That is not an “interpretation.” Any act that purports to be in accordance with the Constitution by the COngress or by the Courts or by the Executive does, in fact, imply and necessitate INTERPRETATION. The relevant provision for the citizenship requirement is simply that the president must be a “Natural Born Citizen.” It does not define that. The Constitution does NOT say who is authorized to interpret it. The country has accepted that the USSC has the final right of interpretation but that original claim by JC Marshall could just as easily be seen as a usurpation and was so seen by the many at the time,including the president. Until Congress defines the “Natural Born Citizen” there is no hard and fast meaning to it.
Arthurus, you don’t cite your authority, but try Article III Secton 2. “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court Shall have original jurisdiction.” As Justice Waite clearly states, the definition comes from the common-law familiar to its framers, as does every other definition used in the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall’s explanation was “Dictum”, undoubtedly true, as Judge Bingham asserted, and used in over twenty repetitions of Marshall’s definition used in other cases before 1785, drawn from Vattel’s Law of Nations, our nation’s first law book at our first law school, created in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson at William and Mary.
There certainly is “hard and fast meaning to it”, as hard and fast as any definition recognized as precedent, as was Chief Justice Waite’s decision in Minor v. Happersett. That is why Obama supporters corrupted the public record of Supreme Court cases citing Minor v. Happersett.
There is not a single mention of natural born citizenship in the tens of thousands of pages of US Code, law written by congress to define naturalization requirements. As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes explained in Perkins v. Elg, man - the Congress - cannot alter law granted by God, Natural Law, so Marie Elg, born to naturalized immigrants in New York, but taken back to be raised in Sweden, cannot be denied her natural born citizenship, and is eligible to run for president once she satisfies the age and residency requirements.
One time in our history, in the 1st Congress, a law was asserted, and almost immediately retracted, in 1795,making the foreign born children of citizen parents “reputed natural born citizens.” Both the original and the retraction were signed by President Washington. After 1795, and in spite of close to thirty attempts to amend Article II section 1, the requirement for natural born citizenship for our president, there has never having been disagreement in a Supreme Court case or the 14th Amendment with the definition of natural born citizen. The famous Wong Kim Ark decision cites and quotes Chief Justice Waite’s “never doubted” precedential definition of natural born citizenship.
The last seven amendment attempts, between 2001 and 2007, four of them apparently aimed at allowing Obama to be eligible, though Orin Hatch clearly intended to make Schwarzenegger eligible with his attempt, failed. All thirty attempts over two hundred years failed, and never reached the states for ratification by three fourths of them.
Nothing Marshall said in The Venus was “seen as usurpation.” though some considered his Marbury v. Madison decision giving the court the enormous power of “judicial review”, a challenge to separation of powers. I’m beginning to wonder whether you have objectives other than truth, throwing around such nonsense. If terms aren’t defined there can be no decision based upon legal reasoning. Since terms aren’t defined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court clarifies the common law and language understood by our framers. That is “interpretation” and both separation of powers and Article II Section II assign that power to the Supreme Court, including both original and appellate jurisdiction. Cite any document that says otherwise, and while you’re at it, cite any statement from US Code interpreting who are natural born citizens. The Constitution left no doubt, Article 1 Section 8, that congress was to "Establish an Uniform Rule for Naturalization". But it also left no doubt that the president, and only the president, must be "natural born", not naturalized. Congress makes the naturalization rules, entirely based upon the 14th Amendment, the "Naturalization Amendment", which never mentions natural born citizenship.