The term natural born citizen is undefined in the U.S. Constitution. Without a definition in the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is not authorized to opine on its definition.
The U.S. federal government is not authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship. The authority delegated to the Congress and the Courts through the U.S. Constitution are coextensive. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 - 1964, citing Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L.Ed. 204. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22, 34 S.Ct. 10, 13, 58 L.Ed. 101; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624, 51 S.Ct. 570, 575, 75 L.Ed. 1302; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1307, 90 L.Ed. 1500. SCOTUS is not authorized to use the common law at the time of the adoption of US Constitution to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship. The People are sovereign and the People have not delegated authority to SCOTUS to thwart the will of the majority at the ballot box to abolish the US Constitution through the election of an ineligible President. The Federalist, No. 78. To allow SCOTUS to opine on the common law while denying Congress or the People the opportunity to respond would make SCOTUS the sovereign and deny the People their sovereign immunity after violating Article II to abolish the US Constitution.
- Sven Magnussen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federalist No. 78
The Judiciary Department
Independent Journal
Saturday, June 14, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]
excerpt -
Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.
- PUBLIUS