Yes, indeed, SCOTUS cited the Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born citizen. WKA did NOT meet the requirements, so SCOTUS had no choice but to construe the 14th Amendment in the ruling.
Here is the ruling, again, in which WKA is found to be "a citizen" only, NOT a natural born citizen:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.""...every court, every state, every state DA, every state SecState, and every member of Congress - agrees with MY interpretation of the WKA decision"
WRONG.
"Chairman LEAHY: Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
Secretary CHERTOFF: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman LEAHY: That is mine, too. Thank you."
- Senate Congressional Record, April 10, 2008.
“Yes, indeed, SCOTUS cited the Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born citizen. “
No, they did not. And they did NOT rely on just the 14th, but instead pointed out that the 14th and the NBC clause were in total agreement.
You aren’t smart enough to ever figure it out (they wrote pages, not sentence fragments), but here is the link to the decision in case anyone wants to read what was REALLY said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html