Natural born citizen is not defined by the US Constitution. So instead, we rely on the US code and various acts (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) to determine intent.US Code of course stipulates it is passed through the mother, as I’m pretty sure most sensable people would support. Heck, if a woman can vote, maybe citizenship can pass through her as well...
"US Code" is fancy talk for all laws passed by Congress and signed by the President ( but lately means omnibus continuing resolutions and midnight riders signed in toto by a President without a line item veto ). It is nothing so noble as the word handed down to Moses from God, or even James Madison.
Why would you ever think that a mere law countermands, defines, edits, clarifies, or supercedes the Constitution?
Are you saying that the 13/14/15th Amendments were not necessary and Congress could have made black folks whole by mere statute? Could they have created women's suffrage? 18-year old vote? Presidential term limits? Presidential succession and removal from incapacitation? Could Newt have passed a statue to make Congressional Term Limits?
Here's the kicker ... Could Congress pass a law that says NBC is both parents citizens and born in a USA State? Apparently that is the kind of thing you were looking for in the US Code.
This is a separation of powers issue. Congress has nothing to say about NBC because it is beyond their enumerated powers to naturalize ALIENS into plain old CITIZENS. When you even mention US Code or a naturalization act you have already admitted to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the federal government.
The Immigration Act cited is the legislation during the 1st Congress to create the necessary mechanism required for a new country to turn ALIENS into CITIZENS as enumerated in the Article I Section 8 power to create uniform rules for naturalization ... BUT ... how did you miss the fact that this was subsequently modified to exclude the very term that confuses you ( "natural born citizen" ) and bring the law/statute/code into line with original intent.
All subsequent legislation uses the non-confusing term-of-art "citizen at birth" ONLY to reference the pool of people that the legislation does NOT affect. This is the key to understanding - Congress's enumerated naturalization authority operates on a completely mutually exclusive pool of people ( ALIENS ) than those who are NBC. They do not create NBC by law/statute/code/decree or wishful thinking. NBC are who they are because that is who they are. Congress has nothing to do with this matter. Nor does the president.
The answer which eludes you is that only We The People determine the requirements/qualifications/terms/etc for the FedGov, and all changes are from Amendments. This is why the Supreme Court punted the issue back to the people to decide for themselves. So fret not, if you like that your guy was born in Canada or Kenya or Saudi Arabia, you still get to vote for him.
Whether or not the Supreme Court can define the term is an interesting question and a potential Constitutional crisis. If they do assume the role of defining base Constitutional terms, then there is no real limit to their power. They will be like Wikipedia super editors, non co-equal highest authority and the last word ( absent Constitutional Amendments ), which would then lead to another can of worms: ping pong between We The People and the Court over original intent. Given their ideological makeup and track record with Roe and Obamacare, maybe this issue *is* best left alone and for We The People to kick around ourselves.
FWIW, and at the risk of arguments from my fellow Constitutionalists, I believe now after 8 years of this issue percolating and seeing the widespread ignorance of fellow citizens too lazy to do even do the most basic research, that Roberts accidentally arrived at the correct answer ... PUNT.
( pinged another Constitutionalist for his/her opinion )
Who said anything about US code superseding the constitution???
Of course it doesn’t.
However, the constitution does not define what natural born means.
By all of your definitions, the founders would themselves have not been eligible for the Presidency...
Ted Cruz was born of a citizen of the United States outside of our borders. He is a citizen. Deal with it.
Dislike him on TPA.. Dislike him because you feel he is beholden to the Illuminati or some tin foil had conspiracy like that, but do not invent garbage and pass it off as fact.
When determining a person's claim to title, a title search is done to ascertain and document the historical trail of title in order to legally prove ownership, to see if the title is clean or if there are any blemishes and whether or not that person's right to sell that property is free and clear with no liens or encumbrances against it.
Citizenship is a two-way street with rights and responsibilities much the same as with property ownership.
Whatever a person's "citizenship" is, whatever it grants claim to and whatever is required due to that claim, it all is determined at birth based upon that person's equal inheritance from three sources: Father, Mother and place/nation of birth.
Regarding eligibility for POTUS, we are essentially doing a title search on the candidates going one generation back to determine the legal quality of their claim to citizenship.
A Natural born citizen, as defined as "born in country to citizen parents", is as clean, blemish free and clear as a title can get. That person is a citizen of that country and none other. There are no other options.
So defined, a natural born citizen has received the exact same inheritance claim to citizenship from all three sources. That's a clear title!
Consider the case of born in Canada Ted Cruz. By law and nature, his title grants him two or possibly three potential claims to citizenship and two or possibly three claims against him.
That is NOT a clear title and the original, self-evident "Natural Born" concept is far from old fashioned as some would have US now believe.
Ted's American title has one or two blemishes and required the rule of law to legally remove it/them. His title could then be considered free and clear legally, but the blemishes are always there.
Trump, having been born here to citizen parents, has a clean American title and is thus eligible to be POTUS.
Neither Cruz, Rubio, Jindal nor obama were born here to citizen parents, so not one of them received a clear American title at birth.
Each had a "dirty" title that had to first be made clean by law in order to remove any and all existing and potential legal, not ideological nor emotional, liens and encumbrances.
They are NOT eligible to be POTUS.
Amnesty transforms a person's citizenship, granting to them a claim that they had illegally taken for themselves.
This is "justified" due to their continuous open and notorious, adverse possession.
Illegal aliens are "squatters" taking advantage of "squatter's rights" while hoping we eventually cave and just legally give them the citizenship they have taken for themselves.
Ineligible to be POTUS, _resident obama is asserting "squatter's rights" by/while living in the White House.
Because the demonrats and their GOPe cohorts LOVE amnesty in all forms as much as they hate American nationalism, we gave obama two terms!
Now, along comes Cruz, Rubio and the rest demanding their NBC amnesty, too.
Who didn't see that coming?
End Amnesty Now!