[Godebert]

Rush is a fraud.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

[combat_boots]

Minor V Happersett disappeared off the ‘Net in 2008.

It’s back.

[Hugin]

Wrong. The court acknowledged there is a difference of opinion on what an NBC is, then specifically said the plaintiff was an NBC under any definition, so they didn’t need to rule as to which is correct. That is not a precedent.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Nice blog.

[Carry_Okie]

I just read the opinion in MINOR V. HAPPERSETT. First of all, the case was about whether the 14th Amendment citizenship clause conferred the right to vote upon women. Any reference to what constitutes a natural born citizen with respect to eligibility to be President in that context would be dicta, and not a precedent. Second, the text refutes your position: Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. There you go. As to the site you linked, there is a difference between being within a jurisdiction and subject to a jurisdiction. The latter means an "American subject," a citizenship that a person retains whether at home or abroad.

[Praxeologue]

The opinion in Minor v. Happersett of the phrase “natural-born citizen” is obiter dicta.