The court first defined his citizenship status showing that he was "natural(ly)-born" in America and that he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law. They then upheld his citizenship status.
Nowhere in that case did they determine Wong to be a natural born citizen. Nowhere did they
define him as a natural born citizen.
They only ruled that he was a citizen. Period.
You clearly do not understand what you present.
The court in Maenza made no such ruling in regards to the type of citizen he was.
It ruled he didn't loose his citizenship through involuntary servitude in another countries service.
I reaching this conclusion,
wouldn't the court first have to determine whether or not Maenza was, in fact, a U.S. citizen and how said citizenship came to be?
Oh dear G_d, no!
Did you not read the syllabus?; The background information surrounding the case?
Appellee Rosario Maenza was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 29, 1912, the son of alien Italian parents. Under familiar principles of international law and of the municipal law of the United States and of Italy, he possessed dual nationality from time of his birth; he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of nativity in this country, Amendment XIV, § 1, and a subject of the King of Italy because of his Italian parentage.
That is what they recognized.
He was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment § 1. Which is not by virtue of Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
The case was only about whether he lost that acknowledged citizenship.
As I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
Which just continues in the following.
This is what the court said on that matter:
There must be more than inference, hypothesis or surmise before a natural-born citizen of the United States can be stripped of his rights and privileges of citizenship and be adjudicated an expatriate.
That is mere dicta. It is not a ruling. It is not a holding. It is not authoritative.
Like I said; You do not understand what you are presenting.
You may find it persuasive and appealing, but that isn't how the law works.
It means nothing as they already recognized he was a citizen under the 14th.
And the 14th does not and can not mean the same as Article II, § 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
They are separate and distinct.
To argue that NBC meant the same as the 14th would render the NBC clause without effect and that simply would not be an argument allowed before the Court.
Just above "
Page 5 U. S. 175"
Therefore, before the court could rule on whether or not Maenza had given up his citizenship status, they had to first determine what type of "citizen" he was - natural-born or naturalized. The court determined that Maenza was, in fact, a "natural-born citizen" and that he did not renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Therefore nothing. The court made no such determination. The court acknowledged that he was a citizen under the 14th. And ruled he did not lose that citizenship. That is all.
The only distinction is if you are naturalized U.S. citizen, i.e., someone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth but applied for U.S. citizenship. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger if you will. It's why he and people like him who applied for U.S. citizenship can never be President. Everyone else who was born here and are "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. laws are natural-born U.S. citizens. Ultimately, there was nothing that either Wong Kim Art or Appellee Rosario Maenza had do anything in order to be declared "natural-born U.S. citizens" except be born here.
Wrong all the way around. Neither was declared a natural born citizen.
The 14th determines who is "just" a citizen.
The 14th can not render the NBC clause without effect.
A natural born citizen and that of the 14th are not the same.
Stop making the same failed arguments and learn from your mistakes.