1. Don't try to make a case say something that it clearly does not.
2. If you are dishonest enough to violate Rule # 1, don't be so dull witted as to include in your excerpt a line, For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts, that explicitly contradicts the point you are trying to make.
...Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen, and concedes that there is a division of authority on that point, but holds For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Well dull witted Bot join the club. It was that "some authorities" who claimed that people were citizens (born within jurisdiction ) and who were not born to citizen parents - was the open question.
As Donofrio states here again:
"The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question."
Again, it was the "citizenship" was the open question. That is if they were even citizens of the country let alone natural born citizens.
The Ankeny court was just as 'dull witted' and stupid and/or 'dishonest' as all the stupid OBots who drank their grape Kool-aid.
Well, aside from the fact that that makes mincemeat of the English in MvH, you are presupposing that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are distinct categories of citizenship. Since most birthers predicate that argument largely on MvH, you're treading dangerously close to circular reasoning here.