You Rogers. V. Bellei as evidence that Minor was cited in a citizenship case. Did you think I was not aware of that case? Minor is cited in Rogers, only it is cited in the dissent. That means it is part of the losing argument in the case. You appear to be a committed birther, so I am sure you are familiar with the concept of losing. BTW, in Rogers, WKA is approvingly cited in the majority opinion as one of the basis for its holding and ruling. Not surprisingly, the case you use in your post is another example that shows that the courts cite WKA when deciding on and ruling citizenship and particularly natural born citizenship rather than Minor.
You still cannot cite a case in the past 100 years that cites Minor in it's opinion, decision and holding regarding natural born citizenship. It is obvious that there is not a single judge, when presented with this issue in the past century who agrees with your convoluted and bogus theory, yet WKA has been approvingly cited thousands of times by all courts addressing the issue. Can you show me a single citizenship case that approvingly cites and uses Minor as a basis for it's ruling using the dicta language you keep parroting. Why have the courts for the past century been citing and quoting WKA instead of Minor when ruling on nbc. Could it be that not a single judge or court considers Minor to have any precedential value when it comes to the issue of nbc? I see another massive birther conspiracy on the horizon. LOL
Sorry, but your claim is the only thing that is intellectually dishonest AND intentionally misleading. I've cited several passages DIRECTLY from the decision that support what I've said. NOTHING is out of context. As I pointed out, Minor's citizenship takes up at least a dozen paragraphs in the decision. That you choose to ignore this only exposes your own dishonesty.
Minor is cited in Rogers, only it is cited in the dissent. That means it is part of the losing argument in the case.
This is just plain stupidity. Cases that are cited in the "winning" argument also get cited in losing argumenst. A couple of examples exist in the Rogers v. Bellei case: Afroyim v. Rusk is cited in the opinion of the court and in the dissent. Wong Kim Ark is cited in both. Second, I can easily cite where Minor is cited in a winning arguments, such as in Wong Kim Ark and Luria, the latter of which said:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 ..."
Minor defined "natives" in satisfying Art II Sec I as those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And sorry to spoil your challenge, but Luria was decided in 1913 ... still less than 100 years ago.
Why have the courts for the past century been citing and quoting WKA instead of Minor when ruling on nbc.
Nobody has shown that anyone is doing this. Rogers v. Bellei certainly doesn't cite Wong Kim Ark to define NBC.