It did not need to determine the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen". It quoted some earlier cases and such, some which defined it, some of which did not. But the ruling itself, did not turn on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and thus all that is mere dicta. Part of which supports the notion that their is distinction between the "child of an alien born in the US, and the Natural born child of a citizen. Each is as much a citizen, but their is a distinction. Just as there are Constitutional distinctions between those "naturalized in the US" and those naturalized at birth outside the US. Or so the Supreme Court has said on more than one occasion.
The language and reasoning is still there. For proof, I again offer this case. Note that they base the decision upon “guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark.”
“Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Remember this was decided in 1898. While they had typewriters then, it was not fun to just spin out irrelevant words for the heck of it.
IF you are correct, why are courts relying on Wong? Do you seriously thin the whole legal world is just delusional? The only part of this that is hard is the part where some NBC’s are born OUTSIDE the country. That is interesting. This part is kinda dull and settled.
parsy