“The ruling in 1898 (WKA) that seems to be the holy grail for you does not address a person’s eligibility to serve as president.”
Yes, it did. As the dissent acknowledged:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
The ruling went into great detail on the meaning of NBC. If you cannot see that, then you are probably beyond any help I can give.
Why did Gray specifically decline to rule Wong Kim Ark a 'natiural born citizen?'
Sorry, I should have been more clear for you (my fault) - The ruling in 1898 (WKA) that seems to be the holy grail for you was not to determine a person’s eligibility to serve as president (as are the cases related to 0 or against others for not determining his natural-born citizenship before putting him on the ballot - in which case SCOTUS will have to explain the definition of natural born citizen).
WKA was about whether or not Wong was an American citizen because he was born in the US. The court found that he was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen, but not that he was natural born citizen.
“The ruling went into great detail on the meaning of NBC.”
Since the ruling was related to whether Wong was a citizen not whether he was eligible to President, you’re throwing dicta at me because....