There is your problem in all its simplicity and glory.
When the judge says:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
And you think it means:
"It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct"
Then there is a serious cognitive disconnect going on.
And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case:
"The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."
Yes, the serious cognitive disconnect is with you because you're quoting the part of the decision that I said was NOT based on legal precedent and you've ignored the part that IS based on legal precedent.
Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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 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.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
Do you understand what this says?? It cited Minor as defining natural-born citizen because it admits that only six years after the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say what NBC means. IOW, the 14th amendment does NOT defined NBC.
Ankeny makes two errors: A) They claimed that the 14th amendment and NBC were read "in tandem" ... This is false, because the Minor court elaborated extensively on who the original citizens of the United States were BEFORE explaining what NBC means in the Constitution. B) The Ankeny court says the Minor Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. They contradict this point in their footnote by acknowledging that Minor "contemplated scenarios where both parents are citizens and aliens." The court does NOT say the question for children born to two citizen parents is left open. This means the Ankeny court answered the question affirmatively for such children. "All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" ... These are the natural-born citizens. No question is left open about this. It is a self-limiting and exclusive definition. Minor went on to contemplate children born to alien and alien/citizen parents, which Ankeny inexplicably ignored:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States ...
- - -
in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
Do you see the part underlined above?? This answers the question Ankeny says was left open.
But let's suppose that Ankeny was correct and the question was left open ... was it then answered by Wong Kim Ark?? Ankeny tells us otherwise, by way of footnote, but trys to downplay this inconvenient fact as "immaterial."
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Do you see the part underlined above?? It shows there is NO legal precedent for Ankeny's conclusion that NBCs can be those born in the territory regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Wong Kim Ark did NOT reach this conclusion nor did they even reach that conclusion for the 14th amendment.
Ankeny's claim that it is "immaterial" is complete and utter horse radish. They said it is irrelevant to all but the 44 former presidents. Well, no, it is relevant to anyone and everyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is relevant to anyone and everyone who is ruled under that Constitution. It is relevant to anyone and everyone who wants to run for president, and it should be relevant to anyone and everyone who votes for president. The NBC requirement is not there as a favor for those who become president.
And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case:
At the time, most people had not read Minor closely nor understood what it meant. But it probably wouldn't have mattered because the Indiana court showed they were being dishonest about the plaintiffs' citations anyway. Did you read what they said?? Obama's own attorney has used factlack dot org as a source for judicial notice. Ankeny pretends in this case it's not good enough for them. They cite the Rocky Mountain News, who wrote a story correcting factlack dot org (because they did a terrible job of researching the issue). Vattel and the Law of Nations are a widely cited by the SCOTUS in decisions from the 1800s up through the 2000s. The citations to various nineteenth century congressional debate was to show the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does Ankeny not admit that's what the citation was??
Then Ankeny says: "To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, ...." We'll stop there for a moment. Those authorities do NOT conflict with the SCOTUS's interpretation of what it means to be a natural-born citizen. Ankeny is simply telling a massive lie here because they already cited the Minor interpretation of NBC and admitted that WKA does NOT give an interpretation of NBC.
We'll continue: "we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true" ... THIS is the meat of the Ankeny review of NBC. Their interpretation of the legal dicta from WKA does NOT have a precedent behind it. It is nothing more than dicta that WKA ONLY used to give teeth to the 14th amendment. By making a conclusion that is NOT supported by legal precedent, they cannot declare EITHER McCain NOR Obama to be a natural-born citizen ... so they didn't. It's simply not there. So instead, they simply used their errant interpretation of NBC to say they did NOT have to accept the plaintiff's arguments as factual or legal. IOW, they just found a reason to say they didn't like the plaintiff's argument, so they were just going to ignore it.
What has changed since then, is that per Ankeny's suggestion, we recognized that Minor IS the definitive Supreme Court precedent on NBC and that the Minor definition was upheld and affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which explains why that court "did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language." Ankeny unwittingly confirmed the Minor definition of NBC and simply lied their way out of admitting it.