Rule of law, Jeffy. All you post is nonsense.
The holding of Minor v. Happersett 1875 is precedent. It is law.
I know it outrages OBOTS like you, but the day is coming when the criteria set out by the Minor Court will exist at the several States level, and you and other communists, excuse me - Democrats - are going to be SOL in your attempts to subvert the U.S.Constitution.
But nice try. I’m going to shoot you down whenever you pop up with the crapola you’re been spreading here today.
Sorry, but no one who matters recognizes it as such. We've even had a court specifically say that Minor V. Happersett DOES NOT SAY what you claim it says.
By the way, are you the same SatinDoll who just took me to task for the fact that WKA, after discussing natural-born citzienship for literally dozens of pages, and clearly finding - in the CORE DISCUSSION AND RATIONALE FOR THAT CASE - that almost all persons born on US soil were natural born citizens, didn't specifically include "natural born" in the final paragraph where they restated what they court was asked ("is WKA a citizen?") and said that the answer was "yes?"
So now you come back and insist that a throwaway couple of lines in an earlier case, which had nothing at all to do with the case being decided, and which CERTAINLY was not referenced in more than one place and NOWHERE NEAR the conclusion of the case, is supposedly "precedent?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Once again, you illustrate just how far you and the other Constitution-twisters will go to try and force things that don't say what you claim, into your precious bogus theory.
Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case, not a citizenship case. Trying to use it as precedent in Presidential eligibility lawsuits has been shot down in every attempt.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Or:
Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Or:
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012