Then why does In RE Lockwood contain a passage stating that Natural Born Citizenship is only important in determining eligiblity for POTUS and cites Minor for the defination? If the case was so irrelevant, why single it out for scrubbing?
The code error Stanley came up with as an excuse is total BS. a “ .* “ would have to be attached to specific characters, in this case “Minor v Happersett”: and all the other SPECIFIC text that was removed from those cases. That was no accident. It was no accident that the case numbers got changed to make them harder to search. It is no accident that text and citations got removed from cases which had anything to say about citizenship.
It actually strains credulity to state that it was an accident. A code error which didn;t get noticed for a year with an * involved in Regex code? Seriously? I don;t think so. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats and flies like a duck, it is most likely a duck.
Minor is cited dozens of times on matters of voting rights AND citizenship. It is supported in historical SCOTUS law. It is solid, and very well defined and cited.
I disagree strongly with your resources.
One thing at a time.
“Then why does In RE Lockwood contain a passage stating that Natural Born Citizenship is only important in determining eligiblity for POTUS.”
Near as I can tell, it doesn’t. I’d appreciate a reference if this is incorrect.