This is simply not true.
This poster refers to Minor v. Happersett (1875), which birthers falsely claim established a "binding precedent" that you have to have both US citizen parents and birth on US soil in order to be a natural born citizen.
The case simply doesn't say that. There was even a US court that specifically RULED that Minor v. Happersett said no such thing.
It's about 1 or 2 sentences, that were completely irrelevant to the resolution of that case (and therefore IN NO WAY a precedent).
Those 1 or 2 sentences say that no one has ever doubted that children born in the US to citizen parents were natural born citizens. It says that, at that time, some authorities also said anyone born in the US was a citizen, whether their parents were citizens or not. But for the purposes of that case, the court was not even going to examine that question as it was irrelevant to the case at hand.
So the birthers have elevated that tiny bit of DICTA ("something said in passing") and claimed it's "binding precedent" when it absolutely is no such thing.
Meanwhile they insist that the excruciatingly detailed 30 or 40 page discussion of the entire legal history of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP in the Wong Kim Ark case is completely irrelevant.
And they do so in spite of the fact that that discussion absolutely IS binding precedent, because it was the core reasoning of the case.
The treatment of both of these cases is utterly ridiculous, and absolutely hypocritical.
I'm sure there are those who don't understand the law who have honestly and sincerely been taken in by it. But when it comes to those who originally put forth the Minor v. Happersett claims, it's nothing but clown-show sleight of hand, and BS propaganda that couldn't be further from the truth.
However, like many when first reading the Constitution I was impressed with how well it was written and how easy it was to understand most of it. I also was impressed with its economy of prose. Those economical Framers went out of their way to add the NBC clause. My faith in the Framers says they meant something by it. Just what they meant has long been a subject of personal curiosity.
Philosophically I favor an originalist strategy for interpreting the law. Prior to Obama arising on the scene I'd read claims that Wong Kim Ark didn't mesh with the interpretation given by the 14th's writers, who allegedly meant something different than that with their "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. I understand Wong Kim Ark is binding law on "citizenship." I also understand the result is different than citizenship law in most other countries and is at least partially to blame for US immigration controversies. And, living in the community to which Dred Scott's arrival should legally have resulted in his freedom I've long been aware that the Supreme Court sometimes rules wrongly and needs to be corrected. Obamacare is a professionally painful reminder of that sad fact.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that Wong Kim Ark needs revision, but also recognize I don't understand the law enough to argue the details. I have downloaded the full decision for future reading. Hopefully I'll learn something from it. 'Birther' sources have claimed Won Kim Ark only dealt with citizenship, not with 'NBC.' My browser's search only found one instance of "natural born" and none of "natural born citizen" in the decision yet you report an "excruciatingly detailed 30 or 40 page discussion of the entire legal history of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP" is there. I look forward to reading it as the former doesn't rule out the latter.
One of the frustrations of 'birthers,' and also of those undecided as to whether they should be birthers, is the refusal of courts to rule on the alleged issue of what is NBC. Over my life courts have ruled on all kinds of cases I'd have never thought belonged in a court of law, yet it seems no one has the standing to bring this case. If there were a political conspiracy to award Miley Cyrus the White House in 2016 I'd like to think there'd be some venue in which I could point out she would be only 24, not the constitutional age of 35 at her inauguration. The rule of law should provide the same venue(s) for the office's other requirements. Although it can be frustrating I understand why judges prefer to make minimalist rulings. To do otherwise would be judicial activism with all its problems. But in this case I wish some case would achieve standing and some judge would produce a brilliantly written analysis of the NBC clause to which only obviously politically blinded types could disagree. Maybe I'll find that analysis in Wong Kim Ark as you suggest. If not, my reverence for the foresight of the Framers will remain enhanced by Obama's case.
Oh, look. More crap.