LOL.
You obviously have no idea what the word “dicta” means. Look it up.
Quoting a bunch of cases, all of which have nothing to do with citizenship, means absolutely nothing.
As I said, no court has ever ruled and no court will ever rule that someone born in the U.S. is not a “natural born” citizen. You really should get over it.
You and your buddy ASA remind me of a bunch of tax protesters. As in delusional.
HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT
The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:
1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
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.” (Emphasis added.)
Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.