[Sherman Logan]

Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents

This decision says people meeting these criteria are NBC.

It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC. It says there have been doubts expressed. It does not say whether those doubts are correct.

[Triple]

BS

Your Logic:
The case says X=3, but since it also does not say that X=/=7, it could mean that X=7.

That is not the way the worlds works.

[edge919]

It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC.

Well, yes, actually it does. "These are the natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguihsed from aliens or foreigners." Had this been inserted one sentence later, the meaning would mean what you think it means. Instead, it said that some authorities go further in delcaring persons to be citizens, but it never characterizes nor suggests that such persons can be characterized as natural-born citizens. Instead it says, that such persons' citizenship would be in doubt. IOW, in this context, natural-born means citizenship that is without doubt.

[frog in a pot]

It does NOT say that people NOT meeting them are NOT NBC.

Standing ovation, and thank you very much for your succinctly stated view.

Here is what I have posted elsewhere in my attempts to help well-meaning but "tough-minded" FReepers realize that not only is Minor not binding law on the point, it does not define NBC.

The choice is:
A. Minor defines natural born citizenship as belonging to only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, or
B. Minor defines a particular class of citizens as natural born citizens but does not exclude the possibility of other classes.

Suppose we are talking about Irish Setters (born in the U.S. of citizen parents), you might say “these were four-legged animals” (“these were…natural-born citizens”).

Does that mean you believe no other four-legged creatures (citizens) can be classified as four-legged animals (natural-born citizens)? Certainly not.

Would it have been more helpful had the court said, if that is what was intended, that “these were the natural born citizens”? Certainly, it reasonably excludes other possibilities.

Would this have been even more helpful: “these and these alone were natural born citizens”? Most certainly, it expressly excludes all other possibilities.

[NJ_Tom]

The language of the decision states that there are doubts as to whether others are Citizens, not whether they are Natural Born Citizens. The case concerned a question of voting rights, which would first require a determination of citizenship; as it was certain that the Mrs. Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, it was unnecessary to further inquire as to whether she was an ordinary Citizen under any rule of jus soli.