What you, like all other Birthers who seek to remain consciously clueless about judicial method and terminology, fail to grasp is that what is binding for stare decisis purposes is not just the decision in the case, but what's termed the ratio decidendi -- the key legal points and rationale of the decision. Gray's analysis in Parts II and III of this decision -- where he states that the English common law jus soli was the "same rule" that existed from the time of the Colonies to the Declaration and under the Constitution and beyond -- is part of his reasoning. It was that "rule" that was incorporated into the 14th Amendment's language "born . . . in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
So Gray's 32 usages of "natural born" are part of the essential rationale. It's not dicta.
And as I have pointed out, discussing Wong Kim Ark when all the evidence lies at the other end of the Century is a fools game.
At the other end of the century? LOL. You are helpless. Swift (1795), Tucker (1803 -- who stated U.S. law was "accordanct" with Blackstone's jus soli view), Kent (1826), Rawle (1829), Story (1830) are all very much early century.
And at the end of the century when the first and greatest SCOTUS citizenship case is argued, how do your sources fare? Marshall is cited, but only by the majority and only as to jurisdiction and naturalization. Bushrod Washington is completely ignored. Samuel Roberts? LOL.
So much for the "provenance" of your sources: on this issue they impress you, but you alone.
Story was a well known Anglophile when it comes to law.
As was everyone else, since they all were steeped in Blackstone. Blackstone, as you may recall from the Donald Lutz study, was the No. 2 most-cited author in the Revolutionary to post-Constitutional period. Vattel? Oh, right, he came in about No. 30.
Story was without question one of our most influential jurists:
One of the towering figures in U.S. Legal History, Story shaped U.S. law both as a judge and as the author of a series of legal treatises. Some legal commentators believe Story's treatises were as influential in the development of nineteenth-century U.S. law as the works of the English jurists Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke had been earlier. Source
This is why in WKA both the majority and dissent were trying to claim Story in their camp. It's just that the majority had the clear jus soli language from Inglis
Your attempt to waive Story aside is just one more bit of hilarity.
At the other end of the century? LOL. You are helpless. Swift (1795), Tucker (1803 -- who stated U.S. law was "accordanct" with Blackstone's jus soli view), Kent (1826), Rawle (1829), Story (1830) are all very much early century.
And all of them are little teeny tiny dwarves compared to Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Washington, Jay, Adams, Marshall, etc.
Nobody is buying your little dwarves song.
Your attempt to waive Story aside is just one more bit of hilarity.
Your attempt to paint him as bigger than Marshall is even more hilarity.