“It is obvious you are unfamiliar with the cases”
I wonder if we were to poll everyone in the U.S. who knows of the case to see if they agree with my characterization of it being about citizenship and explicitly not about presidential eligibility how large would be the majority that came down on my side. Because I know it would be a majority, just not sure how much Birthers have poisoned the well.
“You cannot quote them”
Actually, I can. But I don’t see the efficacy. What I’m arguing is that they didn’t address the issue of whether native born citizens are natural born citizens. Everyone knows they didn’t, even you. Presidential eligibility was not at issue. Birthers cling to the fact that they used another word, which in and of itself they think is proof that the native born are “different” and therefore irrelevant.
The difference between you and I is that I’m asserting what is a completely non-controversial claim, i.e. that Wong Kim Ark wasn’t about natural born status. Since in this case, as in many others, it’s hard to “prove a negative,” my quoting various parts that don’t address presidential eligibility would be no proof at all. I could quote a portion which demonstrates that they weren’t interested in the question, and for that I can do no better than excerpting from the quote from the previous decision you sought fit to quote in turn:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
There it is, right there. For the purposes of the Wong Kim Ark case, whether or not native born citizens were also natural born citizens was irrelevant. Presidency wasn’t at issue, and as such, they steered clear of deciding whether Ark could be president. I hereby provide a link to a site which is at least respectful of Birther, if not an actual Birther site, which admits as much (as all of the honest ones must):
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref14
Here I find the author saying, “The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility...The Supreme Court did not rule that Mr. Ark was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen.”
He says so in response to the question, “Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a ‘natural born citizen’?” implying in the least that the Wong Kim Ark case tends to bolster the anti-Birther side, which is indeed the case.
You, with all your research acumen and knowledge of legalese have yet to quote or link to one part of the Wong Kim Ark case which does say that native born citizens don’t fit the natural born requirement. The excerpt from the previous case you quoted says only that whether the native born are natural born is in doubt, and further that such doubt will not be answered. Please, would you quote the part of the case that proves me wrong!