Virginia Mior was claiming suffrage on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected her claim because they said she was a natural born citizen and cited Art II Sec I to explain what that meant. It's very explicit. It wasn't cited simply for background, but it was a key factor in rejecting her claim of suffrage.
I think you missed this statement of mine in post number 289. See the reference to Wikipedia?
That's what I was replying to. There was no link nor a any quoted text from any wikipedia entry during or prior to that post. You referenced it as if it was part a running argument you were making. IOW, it came from out of the blue and makes no sense, especially when the claim does not jibe with the actual text of Law of Nations.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Since the issue wasn't addressed there, it was covered by WKA in the 1890s.