Sorry to drag you away from whatever it is that is ever so much important than responding to my meager reply.
You seem to suppose that the nature of the case, voting rights, somehow precludes applicability of precedent set by Minor v. Happersett. A curious assumption on your part.
You also seem to suppose that the term "natural-born citizen" was somehow not defined by the Supreme Court in the plain language of the decision.
That plain language states:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
It's you who is wrong, Non-Sequitur. Doubt, and a clear standard of applicability to the term "natural-born citizen," combined with a clarification of the Constitutional meaning of the term itself, is contained within Minor v. Happersett.
Not at all. As a voting rights case the question of who or what is a natural born citizen was not part of the case before the court. Had they defined natural born citizen then the comments would have been made in dicta.
It's you who is wrong, Non-Sequitur.
You should actually read the decision some time. The very next sentence says, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." In other words, defining natural-born citizen is not part of their decision. You may say that natural born citizens are only those born of two U.S. citizen parents. The Happersett decision agrees that such people are indeed natural born citizens. But nowhere does the court say that is the sole deciding factor.