Considering that in 1787 the US already had a considerable chunk of non-state territories (the “Northwest” Territory, everything between the Ohio and the Mississippi: modern Ohio, Indiana, Illinous, Michigan, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesotta), as well as a body of trade and diplomatic representatives abroad, if they had intended to make the requirement based on geographic rather than legal jurisdiction, they would have.
We didn’t know that we had a consitutional right to privacy until SCOTUS said so.
The U.S. Code doesn’t supercede Constitution, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. While a law can provide a defintion or supplement the Constitution, SCOTUS can of course rule that law unconstitutional and it becomes null.
The cited section of the U.S. Code provides a definition of who is a citizen based on where you’re born and whether your parents were citizens at the time of your birth. It doesn’t appear to contradict anything in the Constitution (does the Constitution even mention any citizenship requirements?). However, it does not define the “natural born citizen” requirement for the presidency. Even if you assume that it attempts to, until SCOTUS were to rule in a case, we can’t be certain what “natural born” element of our supreme law means.
For example, Congress passes a law that presidents must be born naturally (no cesareans or epidurals) to qualify as “natural born”. If someone than brought suit, SCOTUS would then have to decide if that law was constitutional.
Similary, if John McCain was elected president, someone might challenge his standing as natural born. McCain could point to TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 and say of course I’m a natural born citizen. SCOTUS would then have to rule whether § 1401 and its defintion was a constitutionally acceptable means to determine natural born status in the context of presidential prerequisites.
Rillian, while you’re correct that the Supreme Court has the final say on any issue of law in the U.S., your position seems to require that no legal question can be finally answered until the Supreme Court rules on it, and that is simply not so. Everyone who consideres the question understands what “natural born” means, and there is no disagreement amongst any branches of government. Under such conditions, the phrase has a discernable meaning. There is no serious question about the “natural bron” requirement of the Constitution means – it means that a person must have been a citizen at the moment of his birth.
This thread has gotten way too long without anyone quoting the operative language. The Fourteenth Amendment states, in relevant part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
As this clause makes clear, “All persons born… in the United States” are U.S. citizens. (And, obviously, are citizens from the moment of their birth, because that is when the clause says it operates.) Barry Goldwater was born in the United States. This sentence says nothing distinguishing between states and territories – there’s either “in the United States” or not “in.” Goldwater was “in,” ergo, he was a natural-born citizen and Constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
–Cliffy