“Yes, indeed, SCOTUS cited the Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born citizen. “
No, they did not. And they did NOT rely on just the 14th, but instead pointed out that the 14th and the NBC clause were in total agreement.
You aren’t smart enough to ever figure it out (they wrote pages, not sentence fragments), but here is the link to the decision in case anyone wants to read what was REALLY said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Yes, they did:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision."There you have it. WKA reasserts that the Minor v. Happersett ruling used common law to define natural born citizen.
Minor v. Happersett states this, as well:
"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."According to the DNC (and they are correct), Obama's citizenship status at birth was governed by a foreign nation.