Exactamundo. I think it’s 99% certain the SCOTUS would rule that way (or refuse to consider), but stranger things have happened.
ETA: You would have to “apply for” your citizenship if you weren’t natural born, yes?
But what if tomorrow morning, Congress passed a law that said essentially that nobody born outside the 50 states, regardless of the citizenship of his parents was a natural born citizen. Would that matter?
Would it also matter than at the time of McCain’s birth, the natural citizenship status wasn’t quite clear. It wasn’t until the 1950s (cite needed) that Congress passed a law retro-actively giving “natural” citizenship to those born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Now, at what point does it become a “Congress declared” citizen versus a “natural” one? Another example:
Suppose it was found with 100% proof that Sarah Palin was born in Kenya by two Kenyan parents. 
In 10 years, the GOP Fundy Congress passes a law saying that anyone who has been a Governor of a U.S. State is a “natural born citizen”. Then Arnie and Sarah go at it in the GOP primary. Legit?
Not really. It’s a law that persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. The law could say something different. (Obviously, since soil citizenry is in the Constitution, we’d have to do so by amendment, but the law could be changed.) So your standard doesn’t scan.
–Cliffy
If you bring an amendment to the Constitution, then all arguments in this thread are moot. Obviously it could all be different with an amendment.
But, since you say that “soil citizenry is in the Constitution”, and implied by any common understanding of the word “natural” in the phrase “natural born citizen”, you can’t say that laws which apply extra definitions to these phrases can be considered “natural”…
It’s not absolute apparently. Jus soli - Wikipedia
So, Congress can interpret *jus soli *to some limited degree. But the consensus appears to be that if you don’t need to apply for citizenship or be naturalized, then you are a “natural born citizen”. I don’t know if in 1924 Native Americans were automatically granted citizenship that extended back to their time of birth without the need to be naturalized. Certainly, all Native Americans born after 1924 were natural born citizens regardless of the fact that their parents may not have enjoyed the benefits of that status and it required an act of Congress to make them citizens. I have no idea how that would play out.
There are four ways to gain U.S. citizenship:
By ius soli: Be born within the United States to parents subject to the law thereof. If Genghis Khan and his Mongol Horde invade the U.S., and he brongs along the pregnant Mrs. Khan, her having a baby on U.S. soil does not grant him citizenship. Likewise, if the Ambassador from Burkina Faso and his wife have a child here, that child is not a citizen – they’re not subjet to U.S. laws. But if you’re born in the United States under any reasonable ground, you gain U.S. citizenship by having been born here. Obama, born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen.
By ius sanguinis: This gets complex, but in general, if you’re born to U.S. citizens, you’re a citizen by birth. If you have only one American citizen parent, there are some residence clauses applicable. McCain was born to U.S. citizens stationed in the Canal Zone, and is eligible – not because of the debatable status of the Canal Zone or Coco Nino Naval Hospital, but because his parents were U.S. citizens legally in residence in Panama. Cliffy has a fascinating perspective on the presumption that the Canal Zone was neither within the U.S. possessions nor outside the U.S., placing it, and McCain’s birth, in legal limbo. However, the year after he was born, the U.S. Congress passed a law making all persons born in the Canal Zone U.S. citizens.
By naturalization: Te passing of a test and taking of an oath of citizneship makes one a citizen in every respect but one equal to a natural born citizen, that one being, of course, eligibility for the Presidency.
The fourth way is by private act of the Congress. If Congress passed a law making Arnold Schwarzenegger a natural born citizen, he would be one, and eligible for the Presidency, regardless of what cases one and two have to say. As far as I know, this has only been done to grant honorary citizenship == to six men, I believe, starting with Lafayette and Churchill.
Obama’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser (bottom left-hand corner of page).
I don’t believe this is true. The requirement of natural-born citizenry is a constitutional one, ergo Congress does not have the power to waive it.
–Cliffy
True Congress cannot trump the Constitution but isn’t the point that there is no definition of a “natural born citizen”? Congress has defined what that means and it has not been held to judicial scrutiny but presumably someone needs to spell out what constitutes a “natural born citizen” and if Congress says that Arnie makes the grade then why not? Unless you think the court would say something to the effect that the words “natural born citizen”, while wide open to interpretation, cannot possibly be stretched to allow Arnie to run for POTUS.
You misread my argument. Jus soli is the law, yes. But it does not have to be the law.
Furthermore, soil citizenry wasn’t in the Constitution until after the Civil War. AFAIK, it was always the law of the land (I don’t know that for sure, though), but just by statute. But again – the rules for who and what constitute citizenship are simply laws. Laws can be changed. Ergo, there’s nothing “natural” about soil citizenship.
The word “natural” in the phrase “natural born citizen” seems obviously (to me) to mean a citizen not through later legal process, but because he qualified as a citizen at birth. Therefore, the critical question is not where someone was born, but rather – at the moment of his birth, did the rules of citizenship for newborns cover this situation? For Obama, born on U.S. soil, the answer is indubitably yes. For McCain, the answer is not clear, although my read suggests the answer is no, because McCain was not made a citizen until around his first birthday.
Um, what? As I’ve said quite a number of times now, there’s nothing “natural” about jus soli. It’s just a rule.
–Cliffy
No court has defined it. But that’s not the same as saying there is no definition. As a matter of plain language, the definition seems clear to me, and I have not heard any suggestion otherwise.
Again, the definition seems obvious to me – a natural born citizen is someone a citizen at birth, which Gov. Schwarzenegger was not. Congress can’t just decalre someone a natural born citizen, because Congress cannot waive the requirement in the Constitution, obvious in my view, that someone running for president must have been a citizen of the U.S. at the moment of his birth.
I don’t think the phrase is wide open to interpretation. Its meaning seems very plain.
But anyway, I don’t expect a court to ever rule on this issue, because it’s the type of political question in which courts are loathe to express an opinion. But just because a court has not ruled on the point, that doesn’t mean the restriction is not still there. If the courts will not rule on the issue, it is up to the polity to refuse to elect someone constitutionally ineligible for the office.
Although, as I said in the other thread, I wasn’t going to vote for McCain anyway. Were the shoe on the other foot, I probably wouldn’t let this consideration stand in the way of casting my ballot for my preferred candidate. But I’d be guilty about it.
Moreover, as I’ve also said elsewhere, I think this is a stupid rule and should be abolished. It made some sense in the generation of the Founding, when monarchical restorations were a real threat and there were all sorts of second sons of royal families which had a claim on the territory of the Americas running around. But that is no longer something the U.S. has to fear. If a presidential candidate is a little too cozy with the land of his birth, even after becoming a citizen, that is something that can be taken into account by the electorate. But there’s no reason someone like Schwarzenegger or Madeline Albright, who have lived here for decades and have AFAIK no real tie to their original countries of citizenship, shouldn’t be allowed to stand for election if they can convince the people they would do the best job. But until such time as we amend the Constitution to remove the rule, it should be enforced. And if the courts aren’t willing to do so, then by the people.
–Cliffy
This is probably the most depressing thing in an already depressing OP.