“...Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent...”
Only upon the scope of it’s case. It could certainly be used as an argument for a case specifically scoped to resolve presidential qualifications, but that argument has not yet been made, argued in that court, or resolved.
That’s not *MY* law — it is the nation’s laws of jurisprudence. So don’t take my word for it, google “judicial restraint” and argue with them. I’m just pointing out how your cited case does not (yet) settle the matter as regards presidential qualifications. No one has seen fit to grind that sausage yet.
Good luck with your candidate!