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.
In addition, the language you quote from Minor supports the fact that the Jus Soli doctrine applies to NBC. A native, one born in this country, is a NBC. The Jus Soli Doctrine!!
Sure a case can be cited in both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. However, in the case you used as an example, Minor is is cited ONLY in the LOSING dissent.
Looking at your posting history, and seeing how long you and the birthers have been on the losing side of this argument, you should either figure out a different legal argument or remain doomed to repeat your failures.It is obvious all your arguments you have made on this thread are LOSERS.
Reading Minor once again, I find it impossible to believe anyone with a legal background can find the language you keep butchering, to be anything but Legal Dicta. If you have any doubt as to the sole issue in the case and holding in Minor, I direct you to last paragraph of Minor which like all SCOTUS cases contains the holding(s) in the case. It should be obvious to you that based on that last paragraph, that any discussion regarding citizenship is dicta and of zero precedential value.
Reading Minor once again, I find it impossible to believe anyone with a legal background can find the language you keep butchering, to be anything but Legal Dicta. If you have any doubt as to the sole issue in the case and holding in Minor, I direct you to last paragraph of Minor which like all SCOTUS cases contains the holding(s) in the case. It should be obvious to you that based on that last paragraph, that any discussion regarding citizenship is dicta and of zero precedential value.