The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so.
This is an out and out lie. That dog won't hunt any longer. The opinion, not the dicta, lays out the answer.
This is even proven further in the article...
In dicta, that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained:
Yet, as one can plainly see, the opinion isn't dicta.
Minor v. Happersett
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
And low and behold, the very quote from above is from the opinion, not the dicta.
Is that hole big enough? Seems like a tanker truck could roll right through that hole of a conclusion.
The opinion IS dicta.
None of this matters to birthers. Since birthers cannot read two sentences without getting confused, an entire article is beyond hope of helping them.
You are aware of what the legal definition of obiter dictum is, aren't you?