Assume for the moment that edge919 is correct and that the holding in Minor is both citizenship and voting rights.
Take this passage from Minor:
“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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Now consider the same passage with the single line “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” removed.
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
The opinion of the court is not changed. Minor is still considered a citizen and she still has no right to vote.
Now consider this statement from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
“What is at stake in distinguishing holding from dictum is that a dictum is not authoritative. It is the part of an opinion that a later court, even if it is an inferior court, is free to reject. So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion—it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, and so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).” United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/837/837.F2d.291.87-1967.html
The single sentence “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” is “not an integral part of the earlier opinion—it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”. It is dicta and not binding on the lower courts.
Which is what Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said during that state’s ballot challenge.
There's no need to "assume" as I've already given citations from other SCOTUS cases (as well as Rogers) that shows how Minor was cited in terms of the citizenship aspect. Second, read the decision. Half of it deals with the citizenship question.
The opinion of the court is not changed. Minor is still considered a citizen and she still has no right to vote.
Oy ... Minor argued that she was a citizen on the basis of the 14th amendment. The paragraph you quoted was what the court used to reject that argument. Removing the sentence on natural-born citizens is simply a dishonest way to remove the part that is inconvenient to Obama apologists. Even leaving out the NBC sentence, why did the court say ANYTHING about being born to citizen parents?? Start there and it will help you to understand that the court was making a material distinction between 14th amendment citizenship and natural-born citizenship.
The single sentence “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” is “not an integral part of the earlier opinion—it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”. It is dicta and not binding on the lower courts.
The problem with your assumption is that fails because the WKA court quoted the part you are desperately trying to omit and they AFFIRMED that the holding in Minor was due to Virginia Minor being held to be born to citizen parents (which went against her argument). And THEN we have a second affirmation in Luria v. United States that Minor made a citizenship distinction that is tied DIRECTLY to Art. II eligibility. IOW, it was NOT treated simply as dicta, but as a binding legal precedent. The same citizenship parameters were cited by the SCOTUS in Ex. Parte Reynolds ... this makes THREE decisions that cited the "dicta" as binding legal precedent.Which is what Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said during that state’s ballot challenge.
Kobach said a lot of things, but he no legal foundation to reject the challenge on this basis. That's why they had to postpone a decision. Under state law, they were supposed to make a decision at the time of the hearing, but Kobach had no legally sound way to do this, and Obama sure didn't give him anything. The challenge showed how Obama's argument was contradicted in the one SCOTUS case it cited by pointing out that WKA says the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Kobach wanted to believe that other people could be natural-born citizens, but he had nothing upon which to support this belief.