That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question.
That is a straightforward question. There either is or there isn't a definition. . . . The answer to the question can't be "it's a technical question". That's a statement, not an answer.
Not so fast. The technical question is not construction of the "natural born" clause; the technical question is settled law about how you read opinions and what the affect of a court decision is.
That's what I am trying to alert the reader to with the statement--the issue in citation of Minor as a holding is not the question of what the natural born clause means; but rather the fact that the decision doesn't address the issue you want to focus on (natural born) at all--the language is just excess verbiage from the court. Technically, the language is what lawyers call "dicta".
Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II... I know the case. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you...Does Minor v. Happersett have within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"
That's why the answer to your question is "no".
So, legally speaking, we still don’t have a definition of “natural born citizen” as it relates to the constitutional requirements for president?