OK, since you cannot read, I'll repeat what they said:
"That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench..."
You say: "the court was "committed to the view"
WKA says: "neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view"
Frankly, if you cannot see the 180 deg difference between what you say and the court said, then there is no point in discussing. Go learn to diagram a sentence. Go learn to read. Start small: "See Dick run. See Dick not run."
You say: "They didn't reject Slaughterhouse."
The court wrote:
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
16 Wall. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.
In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."
I'm not the one with the reading problem. I'll school you yet again momentarily.
WKA says: "neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view"
Frankly, if you cannot see the 180 deg difference between what you say and the court said, then there is no point in discussing. Go learn to diagram a sentence. Go learn to read. Start small: "See Dick run. See Dick not run."
Did YOU read what you posted?? The first part of the sentence said the justices in Slaughterhouse did NOT understand the court be committed to a view.
Let's break it down, piece by piece:
Justice Miller and the other justices did NOT understand something when they decided Slaughterhouse.
What did they not understand?? They did NOT understand the court was going to be committed to a view.
What view was the court committed to?? That "all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment."
What evidence is there that the court was committed to this view of excluding NBCs and children of foreign subjects from the 14th amendment?? The same sentence explains. The evidence is "manifest" (made clear) from a UNANIMOUS decision in the Minor decision.
What did the Minor decision say?? In the next paragraph, Gray cites Minor that "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" were natural born citizens.
Is that true?? How do we know the Minor decision declared citizenship on the basis of citizen parents (as distinguished from birth clause of the 14th amendment)?? It's repeated two paragraphs later:
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, ...
So what difference does it make whether Miller or the other justices did not understand this when Slaughterhouse was decided?? None actually, because Miller and those other justices voted unanimously in the Minor decison that defined natural born citizenship. Gray's point was that we can't look ONLY at Slaughterhouse for guidance on exclusions from the subject clause. He quoted Justice Marshall saying general expressions only apply to the case in question. So Miller's exclusions in Slaughterhouse are not sufficient by themselves.
For other exclusions, Gray turned to Minor and to Elk v. Wilkins. Gray wiggled around Elk, but he could NOT wiggle around Minor. He affirmed Minor and ne'er again uttered the phrase "natural-born citizen" in the decision, opting for a different phrase "citizenship by birth" wholly dependent on domicil to satisfy the subject clause.
Rogers, what other lessons will you require today??