[philman_36]

That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.
Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?

[David]

That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.

Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.