“Didn’t even Ankeny state that Ark wasn’t a NBC?”
No, it did not. It said the court did not make a formal ruling that Ark was a NBC because it did not need to.
Okay, if that's how you want to read it then who am I to disagree.
Perhaps I should have posted where that footnote came from...
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 (snicker) and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
So then we come to this in Ankeny...
The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
Wasn't WKA ruled a citizen, and not a natural born citizen, and the court ruled that he was a citizen @by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and not on the basis of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?
And let me further ask you this...
Why would a court use a case that had nothing whatsoever to do with determining the NBC status of the person before them when they could have used a case that had the very definition of NBC in its holding?
SR511 has nothing to do with Obama, so I don’t CARE. However, a Senate Resolution is not law. Unfortunately, lying birthers sometimes bring it up to support their argument that a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. Thank you for arguing they are wrong to do so.
“Why would a court use a case that had nothing whatsoever to do with determining the NBC status of the person before them when they could have used a case that had the very definition of NBC in its holding?”
Because you have it backwards. The dicta in BOTH Minor & WKA address NBC, with Minor saying ‘we all agree on x and we don’t need to think about y’, and WKA saying, ‘we need to determine y now’.
The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means. The formal RULING did not, because it was not required for the case - just as the RULING in Minor does not in any way discuss the meaning of NBC, but only says voting is not a right of all Americans.
Neither case gave a formal ruling on NBC, because neither case involved a person running for President. However, the dicta in Minor was one sentence, while in WKA it was most of the decision. And the court in Ankeny used the argument in WKA to determine that Obama was, if born in the USA, a NBC.