It is however intriguing to note that the 2008 election pitted against each other two men, each of whom had in his early years the potential to become the leader of another country: Kenya for Obama (despite his birth in Hawaii, he had ius sanguinis claim to Kenyan citizenship, as noted, through his father), and McCain, as noted, to Panamanian citizenship from birth in Panamanian territory adjacent to the Canal Zone.
As far as I know, there isn’t any question that McCain was born in the Canal Zone. He was born in a small hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, a US military base in the Zone. However, this is irrelevant to his citizenship from both the US and Panamanian point of view. Panama always regarded the Canal Zone as part of its national territory, even when it was under US administration, and regards anyone born there eligible for Panamanian citizenship. From the US point of view, birth in the Canal Zone or on a military base did not automatically grant US citizenship.
AFAIK in order to gain Panamanian citizenship McCain would have to apply for it. However, I don’t believe there is any time limit as in the case of Kenya. At least, during the last US election a Panamanian government representative asked about it said that he was eligible.
Oh hell, have I stepped back in time a year? Why are people still arguing about McCain’s birth status?
Almost* everything you’ve said is correct, but you’re missing an extra step. As you note, congress absolutely does have power to define who is a citizen. They can even define whether the the president (or a candidate for president) is a citizen. And when they define this, they can say whether that person is a citizen because they’re born into it (i.e. INA §301 et seq.) or because they became one later (i.e. INA §310 et seq.).
What Congress cannot say is whether their definition of “citizenship” (i.e. INA §§301-361) is equivalent to the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen” (i.e. U.S. Con. II.1.5) as conceived by the framers.
The only body that can say this with any legal authority is the SCOTUS, which has declined to do so as of yet.
*Your implication that “citizenship” = “natural born citizen” is not quite right.
What’s more interesting than the delivery method is the means by which J.C. was conceived (she was screaming “Oh God!”)
What if a candidate were conceived through non-missionary position sex outside of marriage? Surely this is an un"natural" act?
Here’s a nifty bit: One cannot ge a Commissioned Officer in the US Armed Forces unless one is a US citizen. McCain most certainly was a Commissioned Officer and also was never naturalized. That obviously means he was natural born. 
What’s the difference between a doper and pit bull? A pit bull eventually lets go.
There was no complication in Obama’s case regarding the establishment of his status as a natural born citizen of the United States. It didn’t matter where his father or mother were born. He was born in the United States.
I am not disputing that he was born in the United States, nor that he was a US citizen at birth. I am stating that it is undetermined whether the definition of “natural born citizen” as used in the constitution includes someone who was eligible for citizenship of a country other than the United States at the time of birth, as was the case with Obama. As Randy Seltzer has very eloquently pointed out, only the SCOTUS can make this determination, and thus far it has declined to rule on this issue.
One example of someone born in the United States who has no right to US citizenship at birth is the newborn child of a diplomat representing a foreign nation while in the US. Not that this applies in Obama’s case, but that being born in the United States does not automatically confer citizenship status.
C-Sections*** are*** natural.
Did the OP beg the question?
.
“Born in the U.S. and subject to he laws thereof” is how it is phrased, I believe. Another often-cited exception would be the pregnant wife of the general of an invading army accompanying him and giving birth on (occupied) U.S. soil.
The key point is that both ius soli and ius sanguinis each separately entitle one to citizenship. Persons born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws are Americans by birth irrespective of parental citizenship; persons born of American parents temporarily abroad are U.S. citizens from birth ‘by inheritance from their parents’ irrespective of where they were born.
Oh, and Randy? I was not equating citizen with ‘natural born citizen’ – what I said was that, if Congress retroactively grants citizenship to a given population, the Congressional act works to make those born there subsequent to the retroactivity date citizens from birth. The Puerto Rico example which was the jumping-off point for this discussion, for example: in 1952 Congress made residents of Puerto Rico citizens of the U.S. retroactive to January 1941. So take a seven-year-old born in San Juan in 1945 at the time of that law – though his citizenshup may have been questionable before the law passed, by action of the law he became an American citizen by reason of his birth – which in the absence of SCOTUS ruling I believ to be the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’: citizen by reason of birth, as opposed to being naturalized, granted citizenship later in life by special act of Congress, etc.
The very limited debate and discussion of the “natural born citizen” clause at the 1787 Constitutional Convention make it clear that the Framers simply wanted to ensure that foreigners or immigrants of then-suspect allegiance would be ineligible to become President. The actual obstetrical details of birth were irrelevant to them, as they should be to us.
But you acknowledge that there has been no SCOTUS ruling on this, and therefore, any conclusion is based merely on your belief. Granted, your belief is basically the only sane one, and it is one I share. But until one of us is confirmed to a spot on the Supreme Court, there is no actual legal basis for this conclusion.
I think (hope) that the original poster was just trying to be funny. I had a good laugh. Did anyone else? I hope a situation comes up where I can dryly explain that I’m ineligible to be president because I’m a C-section - and see if anyone cracks a smile.
Are there any instances known to law other than eligibility to become President where the distinction betwen “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” is relevant, where someone may or may not be or do something else due to having become a citizen by naturalization?
No. The concept of “natural born citizen” is a constitutional one, and it appears in only one place in the constitution. It is irrelevant to any other situation.
Revoking of citizenship. In extreme cases, this is possible. e.g.: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008053152_webwarcrime15.html
Also (naturalized) citizenship acquired through fraudulent means.
This whole thread is silliness.
There is a huge difference between “Natural Born” and “Naturally Born”.