The critical text from M v. H ruling is not dicta. Another outright lie - it is part of the ruling.
The 19th never invalidated M v. H. M v. H is solid. Hence why the 19th was needed. The 19th altered Minor’s status and ability to vote but did not, in any way, overturn or invalidate M v. H. M v. H has NOT been overturned, invalidated or overruled.
Now it is said we need a ruling to say what was is NOT a natural born citizen. Maybe you should take a class in set theory for that answer.
BTW, where is that RN form?
“Now it is said we need a ruling to say what was is NOT a natural born citizen. Maybe you should take a class in set theory for that answer.”
The logic is pretty simple. If you want to argue that someone is not a natural-born citizen, a declaration that certain people are natural-born citizens is not what you need. That all A is B does not imply that all B is A. You simply get a big red X through your homework.