You lack the understanding of the Supreme Court or the true nature of Minor. For example there is one very important sentence: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
If you actually listen to oral arguments in the Nguyen case before SCOTUS you will see they CLEARLY don’t agree on this issue...and you will see it is NOT settled law.
Interestingly, when another case came up recently that had used the Nguyen case as a basis - NO MENTION of the topic of qualifications to run for President came up.
Nguyen is irrelevant.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT (1874) IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.
When the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
It still stands. Minor vs. Happersett has never been superseded. Never.