There is no reason for them to bring up NBC unless it has bearing on the case. In their decision, they used NBS as the key to understanding NBC...and since WKA qualified as a NBS, and NBC was “precisely analogous”, that made him a NBC and thus a citizen.
WKA was NOT decided based on just the 14th. They used BOTH, as is clear to anyone reading the decision. To deny it is to allow one’s biases to blind one to a simple legal argument.
Whether it has bearing on the case doesn't make the plaintiff a natural born citizen. The case also brings up Indians, Roman law and a French father. Applying your logic would mean that WKA was French-Roman Indian father and lawyer.
In their decision, they used NBS as the key to understanding NBC...and since WKA qualified as a NBS, and NBC was “precisely analogous”, that made him a NBC and thus a citizen.
This is fantasy. They said the term 'citizen' is precisely analogous to 'subject,' which it may be, but it doesn't mean NBS is = to NBC, especially when they've defined the latter clearly as being born in the country to citizen parents. Nothing in the decision contradicts that definition.
WKA was NOT decided based on just the 14th. They used BOTH, as is clear to anyone reading the decision.
There's no 'both.' They used English common law to support the idea that WKA would qualify as a citizen of the United States, under the 14th amendment, because his parents were permanent residents and had permanent domicile in the United States. Nothing in the decision declares the plaintiff to be an NBC.