There's no reading comprehension problem, just your poor ability to communicate. Your reply matched the construction of my previous coment which said "there is NOTHING in the majority opinion that says this ..." Either you're saying there's something in the majority opinion or you're making a redundant comment becuase I've already explained what the "something" was prior to your reply.
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.
No, this is you making a intentional mischaracterization of my position because you can't refute what I actually said.
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.
We have a unanimous decision in Minor that defines NBC to specifically satisfy the meaning of the term in relation to presidential eligibility. Unless the District Court give a specifc definition to disagree with this or unless the WKA majority disagreed, then it doesn't matter what the government counsel or dissent said. Neither establishes the legal precedent. The District Court does NOT trump the Supreme Court. In a full analysis of Wong Kim Ark, it cites and affirms the same definition of NBC from Minor.
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.)
Wrong. I'll explain this ONE more time for your benefit. Wong Kim Ark's attorney cited a case that errantly described a child born to Chinese citizens as natural-born. It's a face value claim that is supported by neither a previous legal precedent nor upheld in the holding of the district court. All we know is that government counsel questioned this term and possible implications because the District Court didn't address those implications. The dissent in WJA mentioned this and then gave a definition of NBC from Vattel that matches the NBC definition quoted by the majority from Minor. If there was a question, it was resolved by these phrases: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens.
...and a note that some people extend that definition further than you like, which you have to torture the syntax to ignore.
The dissent in WJA mentioned this and then gave a definition of NBC from Vattel...
Yes. Interesting, isn't it, that the losing side in WKA cites Vattel in support of his argument. So, to recap: the District Court said WKA was a citizen by virtue of being born in the US; government counsel, in their appeal, said, "But that means he could be president!"; the Supreme Court, in affirming the decision, said "Yep, he's a citizen"; and then the losing side said, "But that means he could be president!" and cited your boy Vattel to try and show otherwise. But after all that, you want us to believe that since the Supreme Court didn't explicitly say, "Yes, he could be president," that's somehow not what they meant. Really, you can say they decided the case wrongly, but to say that's not how they decided the case at all really takes some self-deception.
I'll explain this ONE more time for your benefit. Oh come on, explain it two or three more times. PLEEEASE?