It's the only issue as far as I'm concerned.
1) I feel sorry for you if you think that Rubio's OR Obozo's citizenship is in question at all, much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett (the link to which you have provided complete with some lawyer D'Onofrio's editorial opinions) which can be further be linked to the Justitia website version of the SCOTUS decision in the matter.
2) There are plenty of other issues whether you imagine otherwise or not: abortion, perversion posing as "marriage," the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obozocare, Romneycare, whether Iran should be allowed to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, religious freedom from oppression by Ms. Sebelius's regulations, whether the governments should be allowed to take real estate such as modest homes by eminent domain to facilitate the construction of large private commercial projects merely because they will pay higher amounts of property tax, whether citizens or even persons who are not citizens may be detained by authorities in the US without trial or a right to counsel or even to communicate to the world outside their place of detention to seek relief just because the authorities wish to detain them upon whatever unproven allegations, the rate of taxation, the amount of spending, further corrupt bailouts of corrupt institutions by our corrupt politicos, etc., etc., etc. That list just barely scratches the surface but noooooo, you believe that "natural born citizen" issues are the ONLY issues "as far as (you are) concerned." How very special!
3. Minor vs. Happersett is, BTW, not at all on point. It simply notes that where a person such as Mrs. Minor who was a white woman born in the State of Virginia to parents were both citizens of the United States, she is unquestionably a citizen (but the main holding is that, in Missouri at that time, she nonetheless had no right to vote enforceable against the State of Missouri and its local county or municipal registrar of voters, Mr. Happersett. It specifically also notes that there is controversy as to whether one born in the US of foreign citizens was to be regarded as a natural born citizen or whether one born elsewhere of American citizens would be so regarded without resolving either of those questions. It also notes questions as to whether one who is born wherever of only one citizen parent might be so regarded without resolving that question.
4. "Binding" holdings of the court are applicable and thus "binding" when the circumstances are the same. If Mrs. Minor (apparently a radical suffragette in her time) had all those qualities but also had red hair and blue eyes, the last two characteristics would be irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws before the SCOTUS. OTOH, the court did not have occasion to make any ruling whatsoever as to people with lesser qualifications than Mrs. Minor as to number of citizen parents or place of birth, but at least some credentials.
5. When the now disposed of and quite despicable (and thank God) former Connecticut Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., angered by the magnificence of Ronaldus Maximus, expressed a desire to run for POTUS to restore the GOP's fatal historical flaw of being run by the GOP elites and the peasants be da*ned, it was noted that he had been (unlike most of us) born in Paris, France, when his American citizen father and mother were there due to the senior Mr. Weicker's business duties for Squibb Drug Company (or whatever its formal name was). Trust me. Those of us who despised the younger Weicker as though he were Lucifer's younger brother as well as his most faithful servant on so many of what you regard as non-issues, first saw to his defeat by Joe Lieberman and then tried to cut off his attempt to run for POTUS on the birther issue. It was and is a bogus issue as to Obozo, McCain, George Romney (whose status may have been questionable since he was born in Mexico at a permanent Mormon settlement there) and therefore, by your standard, perhaps throwing Mitt Romney's natural born citizenship status into question, and as to Weicker. Nice try but no ceegar.
6. Weicker then was elected on his solemn and oft-repeated promise to NEVER impose a Connecticut state personal income tax on wages and salaries. His lips moved. Therefore he lied and he made the buying and bullying and bribing of the Connecticut General Assembly his primary obsession, got it enacted in his first year as governor and well understood that he was finished politically as a result but, hey, he got his revenge against his conservative enemies.
7. What you regard as "binding" in the ancient Minor vs. Happersett matter is nothing but dicta at best. Dicta is the term for judicial shooting the breeze and in this matter for nothing more relevant than suggesting that SCOTUS was in 1874 more profound than ever it has been. Dicta amount to mere words or sayings and not "binding" holdings.
8. You may well disagree with me in good faith on paragraph 7 but, if you think Obozo, or any of the rest of them to be other than natural born citizens, file a federal or state action with the courts for a declaratory judgment to uphold your point of view and ask for an injunction against the appearance of his electors on any state ballot and you will lose as soooooo many others have already. If you think that proves the courts lawless you are wrong on to think so on the birther issue but at least you will surely understand how pro-lifers, pro-marriage folks, and others have long regarded our elitist courts.
God bless you and yours and bless your efforts on the birther quest if you actually try but don't hold your breath!
Correct. If the constitutional requirements for the presidency itself are open to negotiation, then all bets are off.
This is really not that hard, and one doesn't even need to resort to Minor v Happersett to reach the natural, logical conclusion:
If the purpose of inserting the Natural Born Citizen language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to preclude, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the Executive (and you'd better believe that is was), then a citizen born on the country's soil to two citizen parents represents the gold standard (completely natural, not being able to be any other kind) in citizenship. Just what you'd want in the person entrusted with the authority to wield the presidential levers of power; a person with presumed undivided loyalty to the Republic.
Nominating an ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket is just about the only thing that will make me vote 3rd party. And if I do, it won't be for a candidate that shrugs off the foregoing exercise in basic logic.