Au contraire. In the Dred Scott decision, the Supremes proclaimed that "persons of African race" were not and could not be citizens of the United States, regardless of whether a given State considered them citizens, or their personal status (free or slave). This decision was rammed thru, despite the fact that, as the dissenters on the Court pointed out, free blacks had at various times been considered citizens of a rather large number of states, including some southern ones.
By this rather dramatic power grab, the Supremes allocated to themselves the power of determining who was and was not a citizen of the United States, regardless of what a State said. The 14th Amendment was needed, or at least was used, to overrule this atrocious decision.
That's what the 14th was all about, recall, that no one born on the soil of the United States could be denied citizenship. Who do you think was doing the denying, and under what authority?
If you like, I'm open to the argument that the definition of how citizenship is acquired was changed by the 14th amendment, as it doesn't change my point with regard to the situation today. It also doesn't make your point, as the 14th merely states the law, it does not say it is changing it from that existing before. It took the power of determining citizenship, already severely wounded by Dred Scott, completely away from the States, or Congress for that matter.
The Wong Kim Ark decision is pretty clear, at least to me, that native born = natural born = born on the soil of the UN to someone other than a foreign diplomat. One of the dissenters pointed out that this decision made a child of "coolies" eligible to be elected President. Presumably he thought this was self-evidently a bad thing. He was nevertheless outvoted.
You may believe, and perhaps rightly, that the law should be otherwise. If you think a Supreme Court decision or constitutional amendment to impose your definition of "natural born" is politically feasible, I want some of whatever you're smoking.
I find it quite remarkable that there is little discussion of what needs to be done to prevent the future election of a perhaps ineligible president. Since all it would take is one state requiring all candidates to document their eligibility before going on the ballot, this shouldn't be too difficult to put through. But nobody seems interested. Why do you think that is?
Senator calls for vetting of candidates’ eligibility
GOP’s Coburn likes plan to require birth certificates
Posted: June 18, 2009
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says it’s the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek, but he’s in favor of both state and federal demands that future presidential candidates have a formal procedure to document their qualifications.
You're inadvertantly reinforcing the point that citizenship, at the time the Constitution was ratified, was determined by the several States, which had been in existence under the Articles of Confederation since 1781, each having their own, separate Constitutions and their own, separate definitions of a natural-born citizen, with differing requirements and differing terminology, some derived from the English common law, and some not.
The Framers sought not to override preexisting, Constitutional requirements within the several States. They were, after all, representatives of their own respective States at the Convention. The Framers sought to form a constitutional republic from these several States, and the role of the Federal Government was severely constrained under the Constitution as ratified. It was further constrained almost immediately after ratification via Amendment, in order to accomodate a strong desire for a Bill of Rights, as detailed at length upthread. Recall George Mason's powerfully stated Objections, arising from the perception that the Constitution as ratified overturned English common law.
The Constitution set forth standards for eligibility to Office at the Federal level. The Constitution enumerated power to the Legislative branch to enact a uniform rule of naturalization. The several States made all remaining determinations as to just who were their citizens, and furthermore, what sort of citizenship these State citizens possessed, under powers reserved unto these States.
There is a rather unique eligibility case from the earliest years of our Republic, involving Albert Gallatin. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it, and the particulars of State jurisdiction regarding determinations of citizenship and just how that impacted his eligiblity for elected Office. He was ruled ineligible, by the way. And, do recall, please, that the Article II requirements for eligibility have never been amended. The original understanding of the Framers still stands as a result, and does apply to the matter at hand regarding Barack Obama.
The majority may have disagreed that their decision made a child of coolies eligible to be POTUS and rejected that contention of the dissenter.
The question before the Court as stated by the majority concerned only the citizenship and citizenship rights of Wong, not his NBC status, which is not a citizenship right.
The decision equated Wong's citizenship rights with the rights of the natural born while maintaining a distinction between the two. NBC status is not a right but rather it is a condition of birth. The court did not say that Wong was NBC.