“The final determination of the court?”
And what is the final determination in the Minor decision?
“We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.”
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Nothing about citizenship much less natural born citizenship.
We were not discussing the Minor decision YET.
We are discussing Wong Kim Ark.
Until I have your response on that subject, the discussion of court cases will proceed no further.
-----
BTW - Did it ever occur to you that all the quotes from the States proclaiming subjects have the same rights, privileges and immunities as natural-born citizens occurred at the same time the Constitution was coming into effect?
Did it ever occur to you that these State proclamations, were intended to function just like Article II, Section I, clause 5?
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
Did it ever occur to you these State legislative acts MIGHT have sunset clauses?
Do you have any proof....whatsoever, that these 'born within the State are natural born citizens' laws were meant to operate in perpetuity?
If you do, I'd certainly like to see it.
What does the verdict have to do with the understanding of the Justices on a point of law? Dicta or Holding, the Judge is still stating the understanding of the court. Making it part of a verdict does not make the opinion of a judge any more or any less correct.
Again, I point out that Justice Waite Looked square at the 14th amendment, and did not find "natural born citizen" in it. I regard it as his informed opinion that the 14th amendment did not define the term "natural born citizen."