In Minor v Happersett the Supreme Court said that there was legal doubt as to whether persons born on US soil but not to 2 US citizen parents are “natural born”.
1. No, it did not say that.
2. The SCOTUS was not being asked to rule on NBC status. The only rulings we have to work with say that Obama was NBC.
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&invol=162 (the text of 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. “
“This class” (as to which there have been doubts) is “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
What does that mean, if not people born within the jurisdiction, regardless of their parents’ citizenship?
Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?