Why has there not been a SCOTUS interpretation of this?

Question

While reading the constitution I came across this:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

No person alive today was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution that is eligible for president. All the presidents in my lifetime have been unlawfully same as the president the took us off the gold standard. Nobody should have the power to veto what the people want. Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

Answer 1

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

It has never been interpreted by any court, because the interpretation you're advocating is nonsensical, and nobody has ever tried to advance it in any court. Therefore, no court has had an opportunity to rule on it.

Congress, however, has (at least implicitly) interpreted this clause to mean that all natural-born citizens are eligible to be president if they also fulfill the other requirements, regardless of when they were born, so that is the prevailing interpretation unless someone manages to challenge the interpretation either before congress or in a court. If such a challenge is made then there will be an explicit ruling.

Answer 2

Why has this never been interpreted by SCOTUS?

The Supreme Court deals with actual cases (Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia).

If no case has been brought to the court, then there is no interpretation from the court.

---

Nobody should have the power to veto what the people want.

If Gowron (as president) and the Great Pumpkin (as vice president) were actually elected by the people, a case could be brought forward to clarify that being created in the United States is not the same as being born (and thus a natural citizen of) the United States.

Under such circumstances (all safeguards having failed), the case would probably be accepted. Otherwise the case would be rejected being hypothetical or frivious.

Answer 3

US Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, can only rule on an issue when it comes up as part of a "case or controversy". This is from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.

This clause is why US Federal courts do not give advisory opinions, as some state courts and some courts in other countries do. They also do not reach out to decide issues not presented in the form of a case.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested the interpretation described in the question as part of an actual court case, so no US federal court would have ever ruled on it.

If such an interpretation had been presented, the general rule of construction would be applied that a statute (including the Constitution ) will not be interpreted so as to reach an absurd result, when a reasonable interpretation is available. A reading which made no one eligible to be elected President who was born after the US Constitution was adopted would be absurd, and so would never be adopted by any court.

However, Congress effectively interprets this provision every time it certifies the results of a Presidential election, because it is one of Congress's duties to certify only eligible people as having been elected. This means Congress must consider the Constitutional rule on who is eligible, and interpret and apply it.