The Minor case did NOT deal with who is a citizen. It dealt with the question of who had the right to vote.
It made a passing reference to citizenship:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
It is obvious to an honest reader that Minor does NOT require two citizen parents for someone to be a NBC, nor did they attempt to answer that question.
Here is what they considered:
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
It was admitted, from the beginning, that she was a citizen. This was a 14th Amendment case in the sense that it used the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which provides that “no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Only an idiot would believe this case was about the citizenship of the woman.
The facts of the case:
“In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a “male citizen of the United States,” but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.”
Please note that NO ONE argued she was not a citizen. That was given. The question was if citizenship and the equal protection clause meant that women had the right to vote.
The actual decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Ummmm, no. Citizenship was pivotal to Virginia Minor's argument. She claimed that by being a 14th amendment citizen, she had a protected right to vote via the 14th amendment. Justice Waite rejected her claim because he said her citizenship (and that of women as a class) was not due to the 14th amendment because she was a natural born citizen. We've been over this several times.