The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens.
This is clearly incorrect. Read "Minor v. Happersett." The Court specifically did NOT define "natural born citizen."
You beat me to the point while I was formatting my post. People who make up complete BS about Supreme Court decisions must not be aware that there’s this new thing called the “Internet”.
Wrong. The court indeed defined "natural-born citizen" using a near-verbatim definition as used by Vattel in Law of Nations. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. Below I underlined the key phrases from both definitions to show how closely they align.
From Minor: 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.
From Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The court used this definition because it rejected Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen.
“This is clearly incorrect. Read “Minor v. Happersett.” The Court specifically did NOT define “natural born citizen.” “
They most certainly did, but decided NOT to address the 14th Amendment issue because they had already ascertained the subject was a natural born citizen so the other issue became moot!
JC