You wrote:
“Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...”
Sooo, I want to pretend to be YOU for a minute and say, “But they didn’t declare her a natural born citizen!!! They just called her a “citizen” which means women can’t ever be President.
Which, NOW, that I am back to being ME, this is where you end up at when you read stuff the way a Vattle Birther does. Not to mention the fact that all the other stuff you said is just mangled up pieces of law you have crammed together. Again.
This would mean something if the previous paragraph in Wong Kim Ark had not directly quoted Minor's definition of natural born citizen. Here are three very important paragraphs in succession from the Wong Kim Ark decision.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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 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.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
The second paragraph above is the last time in the decision that Justice Gray uses the term "natural-born citizens." From this point forward, he uses the term "citizenship by birth" which is a product of the 14th amendment, dependent on the parents having a permanent domicil and residence. Wong Kim Ark is rightfully NEVER declared to be a natural-born citizen. He wasn't. One doesn't need Vattel. The Supreme Court said it all in black and white: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. There is no higher authority than this and it has never been overturned.