“There’s no reason to do this unless they’re making a point that there’s a difference between natural-born and 14th amendment citizenship at birth.”
There would only be a difference IF NBC required citizen parents, and Minor refused to explore that possibility. In WKA, the court took the issue up, and decided it did not.
Minor did not attempt to explore the meaning of NBC, since no one ever doubted that someone born in country to 2 citizen parents met the definition. The court went out of their way to say THAT issue wasn’t before them, and they didn’t need to settle it.
With WKA, they did. And in WKA, they determined that the 14th was a restatement of what had always been true of NBC - as Lynch had made clear, and many other cases. But then, WKA was a citizenship case, while Minor was a voting rights case. And with Minor, her method of citizenship was irrelevant. As a naturalized citizen, she still would not have a right to vote.
Only becaused they already defined NBC exlusively and comprehensively. What they "refused to explore" is whether persons could be citizens if they were born without reference to the citizenship of their parents. In context, those persons were already NOT natural-born citizens. How could a person be "natural-born" if their basic citizenship is in doubt?? Think.
In WKA, the court took the issue up, and decided it did not.
Wrong. They cited and affirmed Minor's NBC definition. It's the last time NBC is discussed because that type of citizenship could not be applied to Wong Kim Ark. Instead, they went 25 more pages trying to find a way to make a Ark a citizen and justify defying a treaty to do so. NBC is nowhere to be found in those last 25 pages.
Minor did not attempt to explore the meaning of NBC, since no one ever doubted that someone born in country to 2 citizen parents met the definition.
This is really a stupid statement. Here's what Minor actually said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
Why would they say resort must be had elsewhere and then follow that with a definition if they weren't going to attempt to "explore the meaning" of NBC???
The court went out of their way to say THAT issue wasn’t before them, and they didn’t need to settle it.
No, the issue that wasn't before them was whether persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of their parents could be legally considered to be citizens. That was what was doubted. Since there's doubt they are citizens, there is NO DOUBT, that they are not and cannot be natural-born citizens. If they were, then the court COULD have said the Constitution DOES say in words who shall be natural-born citizens because the same members of this court had already decided who was excluded from the subject clause of the 14th amendment two years earlier.
With WKA, they did. And in WKA, they determined that the 14th was a restatement of what had always been true of NBC - as Lynch had made clear, and many other cases.
A) WKA never says the 14th amendment is a restatement of what has always been true of NBC, and B) Gray avoided giving any direct citations from Lynch because it went too far. Gray says the opposite about the 14th amendment:
when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
When construing the birth provision of the 14th amendment, it does NOT say who shall be NBC. Read it. Learn it. Accept it.
But then, WKA was a citizenship case, while Minor was a voting rights case.
So why did WKA cite Minor??
And with Minor, her method of citizenship was irrelevant.
Wrong. She based her right to vote on being a citizen through the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS rejected this argument.
As a naturalized citizen, she still would not have a right to vote.
Nobody argues otherwise. What's more important here is that according to the Supreme Court, her citizenship would have made her eligible for the office of president while Wong Kim Ark's did not. And thus, Obama is not. And the bottom line: You STILL cannot get around the SCOTUS's reliance on being born to citizen parents to define NBC.