You're right.
If the Court were to ever take up the issue, it might be considered precedent. But, it could so be overruled, due to additional evidence that contradicts it.
So could any Supreme Court decision.
I'm really not sure what Miller has to do with anything. My point was very simple: you wrote
There are several sources from that time that the Supreme Court considers authoritative....From that era, natural born means born in the US to two citizen parents.and I just wanted to point out that the time the Supreme Court went through those sources extensively, they didn't find the meaning you said was there.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that US v. Miller is a good example of Supreme Court jurisprudence gone awry. It led to decades of bad law until DC v. Heller actually ruled on the whether there was an individual right to possess a firearm.
Until the Supreme Court decides the definition of natural born citizen FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, they haven’t ruled on this issue.