can the definition of "natural born citizen" be challenged in the supreme court instead of amending the const.

Question

natural born citizen is not defined anywhere in the constitution, not even the 14th amendment. So if Congress, both house and Senate with signuture from the President were to pass a law to define natural born citizen "as both born in the US AND citizen for say at least 20 years" and if it is challenged in the Supreme Court and the Court upholds this definition and finds it constitutional, wont be able to by step the entire amendment process? Its a long shot, but a rational and logical argument. It might open the doors for Arnold, Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Senator Mel Martinez of FL. what do you think?

Answer 1

GO ARNOLD !!!!!!!!

Answer 2

The 14th amendment defines a citizen as: "Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In my opinion, any attempt to redefine citizenship other than by amendment to the constitution would be held unconstitutional. This is one of the cases where we need to look at the plain and simple reading of the constitution. It doesn't say "born to citizens" it says "born in". Generally, courts look to the plain and unambiguous meaning of a term, unless the term is somehow misleading or isn't clear. In this case, it is quite clear. The only way to redefine "native born" citizens would be to amend the the constitution.

Answer 3

"Born" is the operative word here. Rather than changing the definition, you'd have to add wording such as "or naturalized, living in the United States for 20 years." This would require an amendment.