Apparently both the district attorney and Justice Fuller thought there was something that implied it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.
By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.
And it doesn't who who shan't be, either.
It's pretty simple: WKA was denied re-entry to the US on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen, despite being born here. He said, "Am too," and the District Court agreed. The government appealed, and as part of it said "Really? You want to let someone like this be president?" The Supreme Court upheld the District Court. It's true that they didn't answer the government's question explicitly, but the dissenter said "I can't believe you're going to let someone like this be president." Clearly, both the government lawyer and Justice Fuller saw that that's what the WKA decision meant.
I'm really starting to think you can't be serious about this--that this is some kind of elaborate troll. You really expect us to believe that someone can't have written "Do you really mean that the child of some Malay passing through can be president, just because he was born here?" in response to a decision unless "Malay" was mentioned in the decision? That's absurd on its face.
The "district attorney" didn't think anything was implied in the majority opinion. They didn't write that opinion before he filed his appeal. You don't seem to understand how the process works.
And it doesn't who who shan't be, either.
No, that part is covered by the majority's definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents, which matches the Law of Nations definition quoted in the Dissent.
It's pretty simple: WKA was denied re-entry to the US on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen, despite being born here. He said, "Am too," and the District Court agreed. The government appealed, and as part of it said "Really? You want to let someone like this be president?"
Not quite. Wong Kim Ark's attorney quoted a similar case where the court declared the person to be a "natural-born citizen." The District Court accepted the general citizenship claim of Wong Kim Ark, but did not itself call him a natural-born citizen. Government counsel posed a question based on the inclusion to the term, making an inferrance that the SCOTUS dissent addressed, but was punted by the majority punted. Last I heard, the dissent doesn't create the legal precedent.
I'm really starting to think you can't be serious about this--that this is some kind of elaborate troll. You really expect us to believe that someone can't have written "Do you really mean that the child of some Malay passing through can be president, just because he was born here?" in response to a decision unless "Malay" was mentioned in the decision? That's absurd on its face.
I'm sure you're an expert on being a troll. You've cherry-picked a small part of my reply ignoring that the whole of the reply proves my point. That you would do this weak cherry-picked is not absurd on its face, but completely absurd as is the rest of your post.