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.
I apologize, I forgot about your reading comprehension problem. I know the SC decision didn't exist before the government counsel expressed their concern. That's why I said "something."
You continue to operate under the principle that if the court didn't explicitly say something, they must have implictly meant its opposite--at least when you want them to. The facts still remain that when the District Court declared WKA a citizen by birth, government counsel expressed a concern that that meant he was eligible for the presidency; and that when the Supreme Court upheld the DC, the dissent expressed the same concern. If it was clear to all that there was a difference between "native citizen" and "natural born citizen" and that declaring WKA one didn't mean he was the other, why would anyone have bothered to say anything about his eligibility? (Answer: they wouldn't.)
What you call "cherry-picking" I call focusing on one thread of your argument and showing how bogus it is. You are very good at misreading one thing, then misreading another to show how it supports the first, and misreading a third to show how it supports the first two. I only have to show that one is a misreading to bring the whole house of cards down.