This is the case most widely cited by birthers, and it's bogus. They take a very small portion out of context, that to paraphrase says "some legal scholars argue that citizen at birth is different than NBC", while ignoring that the court immediately followed by stating that there's no need to rule on that because she clearly qualifies in either case. So it's clearly not a precedent.
You mean this part?
“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
It does not need to be a "precedent". It is merely the opinion of the most authoritative and informed Justices of that time period.
Your argument is that "because it isn't "precedent" they don't know what they are talking about.
No, they *DO* know what they are talking about.