What the case is about is irrelevant to the point. Your side tries this same dodge in Minor v Happersett. You allege that BECAUSE the case was not about Presidential Eligibility, the opinions of the Judge as regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" is irrelevant.
This approach might yield fruit in goofy world of lawyer-speak, but in the real world, it is recognized as being utter crap.
Not buying it, and completely baffled as to why you think anyone should buy that.
Rather, it's called "reading a passage from a case in context" (the correct approach) rather than "quote mining" (the fallacious approach, which is what you attempt).
I don't care if the case is about the best flavor of bubble gum, if a Supreme Court Judge identifies as agreeing with a specific principle of law, it reflects *HIS* opinion on the matter.
Read in context, C.J. Marshall is analyzing a point about domicile in a case involving international law. You can't take a small portion of the material he cites which actually speaks to a different point not at issue, apply that to a completely different context (municipal law involving citizenship), and claim that represents the Judge's view on that other matter. That's absurd.
What the case is about is irrelevant to the point. Nonsense.
The proper distinction must be made between those portions of a judge's analysis that are pertinent to the issue before him (what's termed the ratio decidendi of the opinion) and materials that are tangential or completely extraneous to the question at issue (what's termed obiter dicta).
You can lay a blowtorch to the entire legal system and give it no credence, if you so wish. What you CAN'T do (if you're going to argue coherently) is dismiss with a hand wave any case you don't like, while simultaneously taking fragments of particular cases you do like, interpreting those according to alternative principles you fashion, and then claim you've proven something. Again, that's absurd.
Your side tries this same dodge in Minor v Happersett. You allege that BECAUSE the case was not about Presidential Eligibility, the opinions of the Judge as regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" is irrelevant.
What "I" allege (and I stated this explicitly in my post) is that the case didn't present the question of the birth status of a person born of an alien parent(s), so the case holds no analytical (precedential) value as to any case which actually presents the latter question. (In fact, the Minor court explicitly states that it had no need to address that question).
This approach might yield fruit in goofy world of lawyer-speak, but in the real world, it is recognized as being utter crap.
We can test your statement here empirically and ask whether outside the "world of lawyer-speak" anyone (political commentators, historians, Congress, etc.) understands the Minor case to have exclusively defined "natural born citizen" for Presidential eligibility purposes. And the answer is: No. No one I've seen inhabiting the world outside of the Through-the-Looking-Glass bubble of Vattel Birtherism reads Minor to stand for that proposition.
Not buying it, and completely baffled as to why you think anyone should buy that.
The proposition that statements made in a case which are relevant to the question at issue are the statements to be accorded importance, while other statements not relevant to the question at issue are not to be given such importance isn't really that difficult to grasp.
You can read cases according to your own personal rules, if you wish. That's the prerogative of inhabiting Wonderland. I'm merely explaining why it is that no one who understands how cases historically are composed and interpreted will give your argument credence.