I pointed out to "SometimesLurker" that All the people who created the 14th amendment were familiar with the term "natural born citizen" because it was cited in the debates on the Amendment. That they did not include the words "natural born" right before the word "citizen" was not an oversight or a mistake. It was explicitly left out because citizens created by the 14th amendment were NOT "natural born citizens".
Likewise, Justice Gray and the rest of SCOTUS were quite familiar with the term, and they did not leave it out of their ruling by accident or oversight. They declared Wong a citizen because he was a "citizen" under the 14th amendment. Had they decided that 14th amendment citizenship is the same thing as "natural born citizenship" they would have explicitly said so. The fact that they did not means they did not so intend that the one be considered the equal of the other. It would have cost them nothing to add two words to the decision. They did not do it.
Now you argue that because the term was used in the lower case, that it bound the decision in the upper case. I disagree. It is within the powers of the court to partially agree, or partially accept some aspect of a lower case while not granting acceptance of the whole.
They accepted the "citizen" part, but they tacitly did not accept the "natural born" part. Again, had they done so, the decision would have two additional words.
The fact that subsequent lawyers and authorities have interpreted it that way is just the result of a fault in their understanding.
The court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
It really just gets too tiresome to explain to people like you about Wong Kim Ark which is why I rarely get involved.
Do you even understand that the 14th Amendment DID NOT INTEND FOR IT TO INCLUDE PEIOPLE LIKE ARK. Read what the writers had to say about their intent of 14th Amendment. There is plenty of historical references to show you the intent.. SCOTUS REFUSED the evidence because they knew it would blow their decision out of the water.
If you are honest about the law , if you really understand it, the cases that were CONTROLLING on the lower court talked about Natural Born Citizen. Ark was a natural born Citizen according to the CONTROLLING CASES.
The lower court indicated that they thought Law of Nations might be better suited BUT the controlling legal authority would not let them use it. The had to go with CONTROLLING legal authority. That should be an even bigger slap in your face about this decision. SCOTUS affirmed the decision that is NOT BASED ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen but they felt it was an error.
SCOTUS did not agree and AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Why you would want to laud Ark is beyond me...especially when you know that they REJECTED VATTEL as did the lower court.
it is mind boggling that so many VATTEL supporters support ARK when it REJECTS your whole idea.