“the dissent, you may note, quoted Vittal’s definition. But minority opinions have not the force of law in this instance”
Picking and choosing again, huh?
Minority opinions not only dispute some of the Majority Opinion points, but also raise secondary issues not addressed in the Majority opinion. They do this in order to provide some food for thought/perspective, and limits on the Majority Opimion for any court using that case for deciding another case......In effect they do have your “Force of Law” because they effect the decisions of future courts that regularily qoute those Minority Opinions......
In Wong, the Minority Opinion says (paraphrased)... while none of us dispute the definition of NBC....quotes Vittal......there is some question as to what constitutes mere citizenship....
This is the question that the Wong Case decided, what constitutes mere citizenship.....birth in the US to legal residents, that were non-citizens, suffficed to establish citizenship per the Majority Opinion in Wong....
It is revealing that the Minority quotes Vittal’s NBC definition as being undisputed by the entire court, their difference of opinion was as to what constituted the simplier, but less clear question of what established mere citizenship.... something you fail to acknowledge, or understand.....
I’ll say again “What’s your point?”
The Wong Court, while acknowledging Vittal’s definition of a Natural Born Citizenship as undisputed, decided the question of what constituted mere citizenship in relation to Wong Arc Kim’s situation......
Shall I say it again for you?
There is a gaggle of them where this guy came from.