Wrong on both counts. Mr. Pilot needs to lean what a holding is. The underlying reasoning supporting a holding is part of the holding. In the case of Ark, he was ruled a citizen because citizens born in the US are natural born citizens. Thus it is incorrect to say he was held to be "just a citizen."<quoted text>
Wong was ruled to be a "Citizen" nothing more.
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."- United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""- The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
In the Venus, the quote of Vattel was not a holding per who is a citizen. Indeed the quote pertained to domicile.
Insofar as Elg is concerned, she was ruled a natural born citizen because she was born in the United States, not because of her parentage. Indeed the holding in Elg, that she was a natural born citizen, was based on the holding in Ark (born in the USA). Now when the USSC rules that Elg was a natural born citizen because she was born in the US per US v. Ark, it is absurd to claim that Ark was not a natural born citizen when his birth circumstances fulfilled the very same requirement. Such a conclusion is irrational on its face.
Mr. Pilot needs to lean what constitutes a holding.
The birther quoted the personal opinion of Bingham, and then I showed that he had changed that opinion, and I added another opinion.
As for a Supreme Court ruling, well, that ALSO shows that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth. Here is the key ruling, the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, btw, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett):