WKA DOES affirm the finding in Minor and proceeded to create a definition of "citizenship by birth" via the 14th amendment because the court could NOT declare Ark to be a natural born citizen.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
The paragraph prior to this cited Waite's definition of natural born citizen from the Minor decision and two paragraphs prior, Gray noted that the court was "committed to the view that or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." This is the last time in Wong Kim Ark decision that Gray says anything about natural born citizenship. Ark obviously didn't meet this definition. Gray had to shift his focus to the 14th amendment AND to the idea that the Constitution could override a treaty with China in respect to citizenship and that a child of foreign subjects could be born a citizen without the parents becoming citizens.
So, going on about how you've been saying the same thing for months that Leo is now "patting himself on the back" over makes you look silly because you aren't saying the same thing as Leo.
Sorry, buck, but I didn't say I was saying the "same thing" as Leo. I said I've been citing the Minor decision and the affirmation of that decision by Wong Kim Ark for months. Here's what Leo wrote in his essay:
The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue.
There are several parts of his argument that are similar to things I and others have already posted, such as:
There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.
Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does.
By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote.
This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
To affirm means to uphold a judgment. WKA does not uphold the judgment made in Minor of the definition of a natural-born citizen. In WKA Justice Gray mentions Minor to point out that Justice Waite resorted to common law to find a definition of something not defined in the Constitution and then to discuss the implications of owing allegiance. The Court determines that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen under the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That determination did not require a judgment on the defintion of a natural-born citizen.
Sorry, buck, but I didn't say I was saying the "same thing" as Leo.
You said you didn't know why Leo was patting himself on the back because you had been saying x for months. That most certainly implies that you believe you said x before Leo discovered it. (Which is childish and also incorrect.) Then later you suggested that you weren't looking for credit and went on to criticize Leo for touting his analysis as some sort of "breakthrough legal epiphany." There is a second implication that you've already covered what Leo is only now analyzing.