[edge919]

Legal Dicta is language employed in a court's opinion that is NOT relevant to the holding of the case.

Sorry, but the word you are looking for is "necessary" not relevant, as defined here:

A remark, statement or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case.

link

Further, the Supreme Court itself says that dicta can be used if it is seen as persuasive.

Putting aside dicta, which may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but which are not controlling, ...

link

Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc.

Sorry, but these cases are NOT about NBC. They may be about "native-born" citizenship or Gray's "citizenship by birth," but they are NOT about "natural-born citizenship" which Wong specifically defined (in following Minor) as "all children born inthe country to parents who were its citizens."

[ydoucare]

Both words, ‘relevant’ and ‘necessary’ have been used in definitions of legal dicta and have the same meaning within the definition. Using either word, the dicta language you keep butchering and using is dicta which cannot and never has been used as precedent in any legal case regarding citizenship whereas the WKA definition of citizenship and natural born citizenship has been consistently used and is still used today.

Read the Ankeny v. Daniels case from 2008. The appellants argued that Obama was not eligible to be president and sole issue on appeal was whether the fact that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the US at time of his birth made him ineligible to be president. Sounds like the the Minor dicta you love to quote would be right on point. Only the court did not find it all persuasive, just like every other court in the past 100 years, and did not use Minor as the precedent in ruling on this issue. Instead the Indiana court used WKA and the language in WKA as the binding legal precedent in it's ruling and holding. The Ankeny case is a prefect illustration of what I have telling you throughout this thread. Minor has not, is not, and never will be considered any type of precedent for the definition of natural born citizenship.

A native born citizen, a citizen by birth and a citizen at birth are all natural born citizens. It sounds like you are claiming Marco Rubio is not a nbc. How do you plan on preventing him from running for V.P. if the Republican Party nominates him. Using Minor as your precedent to keep him off the ballot? ROTFLOL