The core of Ankeny is WKA. But you knew that.
And yes - I know that birthers interpret WKA differently than Ankeny.
Scalia understands WKA:
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
Considering the lack of success birthers have had at the Supreme Court, I wouldn’t be counting on them to agree with you.
I'll try again.
Does a SCOTUS case have greater precedence over a State appeal case?
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898)."
That's lawyerly weasel talk, and I'm pretty sure that you know it. Sources is not at all the same as Type of citizenship. I read through Miller v. Albright and didn't see the term natural born citizen once.
Even here, SCOTUS did not wade into a definition of Natural Born Citizen beyond the single one described in Minor v. Happersett as being "without doubt". Judicial Restraint. Ankeny doesn't trump SCOTUS, and neither WKA nor Miller v. Albright use the term Natural Born to describe any of the litigants with a stake in the outcome, that I can see.
"Natural born" is a quality or characteristic of citizenship. It is a quality imparted by the particular circumstance of birth in the country to citizen parents.
The Supreme Court did not rely on positive law when it observed that "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." So how are these people citizens? The answer is obvious, the natural law of nature.
"Natural born" by nature (jus sanguinus), "citizen" by government (jus soil)
Yes, I think it is time for you to stop pretending. You are a Fogbow Obot who is here to act as an agent provocateur. I find it unlikely that you are a conservative of any sort. Conservatives are generally not prone to such lying or self deception.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
The problem: WKA says that NBC is NOT defined by the Constitution:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, 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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
So when Scalia cites WKA to say the Constitution contemplates only TWO sources of citizenship, NEITHER of those sources refers to NBC because Gray specifically cited Minor to say that the Constitution does NOT define NBC. It's why Gray said the Supreme Court was "committed to the view" that NBCs are excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Then WKA cites Minor's definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were it citizens." The dissent in WKA noted that the NBC definition is from Vattel.