Some cases have been on the books for long enough without any substantial challenge rising up against them as to be settled, however controversial they were at the time. Obvious examples would be Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation) and Marbury v. Madison (establishing the right of the courts to strike down laws as “unconstitutional”).
There has never been a supreme court case involving the definition of natural born citizen as it applies to eligibility to be President under the Constitution. It is far from being settled law.
Hussein Ubama was not born in the U.S. and he can’t prove he was. His citizenship is no longer in doubt.
Ok, seriously, what aren’t you getting about this? There are no “settled laws”, just like there is no “settled science”. If people make a living arguing over it, it will never be “settled”.
The definition in Minor v. Happersett was cited specifically to satisfy what the term means in Article II Sec. I. It was key to the court’s rejection of Virginia Minor’s argument of being a 14th amendment citizen. In effect, they admitted she could run for president even though she had no right to vote. By contrast, Obama can vote but he’s not Constitutionally eligible for the office he occupies.