Earlier in this thread, Lmo56 said, “HOWEVER, that DOES NOT settle the “natural-born citizen” [NBC] question since it HAS NEVER been EXACTLY defined in the Constitution [or its amendments], nor by SCOTUS ruling.” We have at least TWO landmark SCOTUS rulings that did define natural-born citizen. This is why I’m addressing the confusion about dicta and holding. WKA arrived at a conclusion that Ark was a citizen under the 14th amendment because he could NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen under the definition that was cited from the Minor decision. This is an example of stare decisis, not dicta. Justice Gray looked at previous Supreme Court decisions and how each addressed the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Gray satisfied the subject clause by including a permanent residence and domicil requirement that was formed by the lengthy review of common law. Gray made a few errors, but along the way, he clearly defined NBC and upheld a decision that was unanimous in defining the term and in rejecting the 14th amendment as applying to NBCs.
Thanks for the summary - very helpful.