Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?
No, I'm in some percentile -- which is apparently above yours -- which understands how our legal system works. This case does not rule on the exact meaning of NBC and it says so quite plainly in the text you quoted.
It like you're a defense attorney holding up a picture of your client committing a murder and saying, "This picture proves my client didn't do it because he would never hold a knife like that."
The highest court to rule on this, to date, is the Indiana Court of Appeals and their ruling would make Obama a NBC. This post-dates Minor v Happersett by a more than a century and is the prevailing precedent until the SCOTUS overrules it. And they haven't.
As I said, you can't be proven wrong because conspiracy theories can never be proven wrong. For a conspiracy theorist, lack of evidence is proof and counter-evidence is just proof of the conspiracy. The only reason I'm responding to you at all is for the benefit of anyone else who is following this and actually wants to know the facts. So please go ahead and put me on your enemies list. For the record, I don't want to be on your enemies list because I believe you are a committed patriot who wants to move our country back in the right direction, but I'm not going to stop disagreeing with you.
You’re not even reading what it is that you’re contesting.
I said that in Minor v Happersett the SCOTUS acknowledged that there were doubts about whether children born on US soil to non-citizen parents are natural born. You flippantly said they didn’t say that. I provided the quote from Minor v Happersett and it is clear that this is what they were saying.
I never said that SCOTUS ruled on NBC in Minor v Happersett. I said that they said there was legal doubt as to whether children born on US soil to non-citizen parents are natural born citizens. Your knee-jerk reaction was to say I was wrong, even though the language in that decision is clear.
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and listen for once. Look at the sources and comprehend. Engage with what is presented and stop with this childish “No, I didn’t”... “Yes, you did”.... “Did not”.... “Did too”.... garbage; it’s only clogging things up and wasting time. If you’re not willing and/or able to do those things, then just spare us all by staying out of the conversation.
The end decision that the Supreme Court had regarding the citizenship of Mrs. Minor was that she was a natural-born citizen by virtue of her birth on US soil to 2 US-citizen parents. She had that citizenship regardless of whether the 14th Amendment was in effect or not; it was given to her by NATURE, not by law. At that particular time, there were doubts about whether somebody born in the US to non-citizen parents could be natural born citizens. If the Supreme Court had given citations there we would know exactly what they were talking about and what was the basis for the doubts. They didn’t, so what we know is just that there were doubts.
And that’s all I said. You can argue that those doubts were later answered authoritatively by this or that ruling, but I never argued about that. I only said that Minor v Happersett was after the 14th Amendment was enacted (and M v H actually made reference to the 14th Amendment, as I noted above) and STILL said that there were doubts about whether being born on US soil is enough to make a person a “natural born” citizen, or even a citizen. Everybody born on US soil would clearly be at least a CITIZEN according to the 14th amendment, unless the word “jurisdiction” included some aspect concerning the parents’ citizenship. IOW, it seems to me that the court in M v H is saying that there were doubts over whether “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment concerns parents’ citizenship. Sorting that all out would be a mess, because Blacks were not only considered non-citizens, they were legally considered as non-persons because of the Dred Scott decision, and the 14th Amendment was meant to allow Blacks to be US citizens even though none of them had gone through naturalization and presumably at some point were citizens of a country in Africa. Deciding all of that was beyond the scope of M v H so they didn’t go into it. They left that issue with a simple acknowledgment that there was controversy over whether simply being born on US soil meant a person was a citizen.