I admit no such thing. The Court VERY CLEARLY determined Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, as I explained in my last post.
My admission was that they did not explicitly state IN THEIR CONCLUDING STATEMENT, "Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen." Instead, because the QUESTION they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" they said in the concluding statement, "Yes, Wong Kim Ark is a citizen."
But along the way, they VERY, VERY CLEARLY found him to be more than just a "citizen."
It is completely clear that they DETERMINED that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
And this is not disputed by ANY SIGNIFICANT LEGAL AUTHORITY anywhere in the United States. It is only idiotic birthers who can look at this case and make the completely idiotic claim that the Court "failed to determine that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen."
A modern court will often spell out its ‘holdings’ in specific detail. For example, in this case involving a suit against Jiffy Lube:
“P10 Plaintiffs contend the court erred in granting Jiffy Lube’s motion for summary judgment. [HN1] In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered...
...P12 [HN2] “To establish a claim for negligence, [***7] a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, P 9, 150 P.3d at 230. [HN3] Duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 504, 667 P.2d 200, 204 (1983) (quoting W. Proffer, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)...
...[HN4] Whether a defendant owes the plaintiff a duty is a threshold issue. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143, P 11, 150 P.3d at 230. Absent a duty, a negligence action cannot be maintained. Id...
...In analyzing this issue, [HN5] the Arizona Supreme Court considered two factors in evaluating the existence of a duty: (1) the relationship between the parties and (2) public policy considerations. Id. at 144-146, PP 18-26, 150 P.3d at 231-233.”
All from JOSEPH BRYANT DIAZ; JOSEPH DIAZ, JR.; PATRICIA DIAZ, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. dba JIFFY LUBE, Defendant/Appellee.
224 Ariz. 335; 230 P.3d 718; 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 70; 581 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 32
Modern folks being dumbed down, many courts will not very specifically mark out each step in their argument. That isn’t done everywhere, and certainly was not the habit of 100+ years ago. But the holding of a court is the entire reasoning used to reach the conclusion, not just the conclusive statement.
WKA spent at least 2 of the major sections discussing natural born subject / natural born citizen / native citizen, all of which it considered to be interchangeable. They did not write all that stuff just because. They wrote it because it was an integral part of their decision.
Unhappily, most birthers cannot read paragraphs and pages, and thus, like MamaTexas, become utterly confused.
And at an irreducible minimum, the argument used in WKA would be persuasive precedence, if not binding - although I think any court would treat it as binding. That has certainly been the case so far!