[Mr Rogers]

The actual ruling in Minor doesn’t mention NBC. It is one sentence.

The decision, including the dicta, spends a paragraph on the subject. WKA, in the decision, spent half the decision. But the WKA RULING was limited, just as the Minor ruling was.

[philman_36]

I've got one word for you...holding.

[philman_36]

The actual ruling in Minor doesn’t mention NBC.

From the decision in Minor v Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

From the syllabus...

2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

Only in your mind does it not do so. Another fail for you.