“And the dissent in WKA recognized the implication that it made WKA a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It did no such thing!”
Ummm....yes it did.
“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.”
It understood the implications of the argument used by the majority, which I now realize IS binding.
Ummm ... no, it did not. What you cited is a based on the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution. The dissent agreed with the majority on how 14th amendment citizens were defined, which would mean Justice Fuller would have to disagree with his own citation of Vattel for defining natural-born citizen. Rogers, as always, it helps to have read the WHOLE decision, not just the parts with the words YOU want to believe in.
Does it bear that construction, or rather is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens, and not otherwise - - - In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens;
The ONLY part of the majority decision that Fuller actually disagreed with is that children of resident aliens could be born citizens when a treaty says otherwise. Otherwise, Fuller bought the rest of Gray's common law citizenship by birth definition for resident aliens under the 14th amendment. He even USED the same term as is bolded above: citizenship by birth.
A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power.
Do you understand Rogers?? Fuller says the 14th amendment does not have the power to abridge treaty-making power. Had there not been a treaty with China preventing its subjects from becoming U.S. citizens, Fuller would have fully (pun intended) agreed with the majority. He STILL made a distinction between such 14th amendment citizenship and natural-born citizenship ... but that, as you know full well (pun intended again), was the same distinction made by the majority opinion when it cited, affirmed and failed to dispute Minor's exclusive definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen."