As usual, you resort to ad hominem insults and deflection. I repeat. The definition of natural born citizen is ABOUT presidential eligibility as it was linked DIRECTLY to the requirements in Art. II Sec. I. The fact that the Indiana appeals court overlooked this very specific definition shows what incompetent boobs the judges are. What they cited doesn't not support their conclusions, which they admitted in their footnotes when they acknowledge that WKA found no one to be a natural born citizen, especially not on the basis of the phantom 'guidance' they divined from the decision.
As usual, you resort to ad hominem insults and deflection. I repeat. The definition of natural born citizen is ABOUT presidential eligibility as it was linked DIRECTLY to the requirements in Art. II Sec. I. The fact that the Indiana appeals court overlooked this very specific definition shows what incompetent boobs the judges are. What they cited doesn’t not support their conclusions, which they admitted in their footnotes when they acknowledge that WKA found no one to be a natural born citizen, especially not on the basis of the phantom ‘guidance’ they divined from the decision.
But now hopefully you’ll at least understand that Minor v Happersett was a pre-nineteenth amendment women’s suffrage case and Wong Kim Ark was a born citizen/Chinese Exclusion Act case. Neither had anything to do with eligibility to be president.