You don’t know what a legal precedence is.
“dictum
n. Latin for “remark,” a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment.”
The argument made in WKA is central to the decision, and thus is not just ‘dicta’ - unlike the passing comment made in Minor, which birthers like to quote. It is a matter on which they heard testimony from both sides, and was critical in reaching their conclusion. That makes it part of the decision.
The argument made in WKA is NOT about natural-born citizenship. The only time they referred to it was when they brought Article II and how it was defined by the Minor court. WKA’s central argument was about a different term “citizenship by birth” ... which is why they did not pronounce WKA to be a natural-born citizen ... which Ankeny admits ... which means there’s no legal precedence for the DICTUM in Ankeny. The ONLY legal precedent Ankeny cited was from Minor. That’s it. Game. Set. Match.