Absolute nonsense. There's not a single real authority in the entire country who says the Supreme Court "defined" "natural born citizen" in Minor.
In fact, the US Supreme Court itself quoted that passage in Minor for the express purpose of showing that that particular Court WAS NOT committed to the view that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were not born citizens:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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.
You said:
No other SCOTUS rulings has differed from this definition and no lower court trumps the SCOTUS.
Certainly no lower court trumps the SCOTUS. But Minor never gave a "definition" of natural born citizen, they only observed that if you were born on US soil to citizen parents, then there was no question you were one.
Then they expressly said they weren't going to look into the question.
However, a later Supreme Court DID completely contradict your bogus birther claim: US v. Wong Kim Ark:
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.
Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.
The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.
All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.
You knew all this already, of course.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the BS claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen. It's still absolute, total, complete BS.
What is it like to be a crazy disbarred attorney? Do you visit worlds more than Captain Kirk?
What is it really like to be crazy?
Van Gogh showed us in his paintings and Jeff in your musings.
The Supreme Court did in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and in modern times, the Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Minor defined NBC.
In fact, the US Supreme Court itself quoted that passage in Minor for the express purpose of showing that that particular Court WAS NOT committed to the view that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were not born citizens:
You need to learn to read. That's not what that passage says. It was pointing out that the Slaughterhouse exclusions to the subject clause were not comprehensive exclusions to the 14th amendment because two years later, Minor unanimously excluded children born of citizen parents. That's why it gives the full citation of Minor's definiton of NBC and follows by giving the holding in Minor as being a citizen due to birth in the country to citizen parents.
But Minor never gave a "definition" of natural born citizen, they only observed that if you were born on US soil to citizen parents, then there was no question you were one.
No, they said if you were born on U.S. soil to citizen parents there was no doubt that you were a citizen. Then they exclusively characterized this group of citizens as natural-born citizens.
Then they expressly said they weren't going to look into the question.
No, they said there was no need to solve the citizenship doubts about people born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Since there was doubt about their citizenship, they could NOT be natural-born citizens. In context, "natural born" means with no doubts.
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
"Precisely analogous" does NOT mean "equal to." And nothing in this passage talks about natural-born citizens. That characterization was reserved as defined by Minor.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
These weren't compelling points. It's describing English law, not U.S. law. If that law had been compelling, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment.
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Right. That rule was in effect for persons born in the U.S. to aliens in some colonies, but not all. The Treaty of 1783 was used to separate natural-born subjects from natural-born citizens, based on the loyalties of the parents.
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
Except the court never said anything about making such a substitution and it never made any such substitution. Quit making things up.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
The "rule" applied to the children of British loyalists. IOW, it was possible to be born in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution and be a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
It didn't say any such thing. It was a quote from a North Carolina court. Justice Gray went on to cite several authorities that made similar types of declarations, but in the next section of analysis, he arrives at the Minor decision and affirms its exlcusive definition of natural-born citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark says this. You're trying to connect dots that Justice Gray was neither willing nor able to connect because he was compelled to affirm the UNANIMOUS Minor definiton of NBC. That's what happens when there is a legal precedent.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
No, actually it doesn't, because only a handful of courts have declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, but they have not been consistent in citing any legal foundation for it.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
The Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a natural-born citizen.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
Yes, and in Wong Kim Ark, the core reasoning was that Ark was a 14th amendment citizen by birth because he was born in the country to parents with permanent residence and domicil. Cruz doesn't meet this definition nor has Obama and of course both do not satisfy the Ark definition of NBC as cited from Minor.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
The conclusion you've come to was never stated in Ark, much less "restated."
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
You need to worry about speaking for yourself instead of trying to misstate the position of so-called "birthers." You also don't understand the Minor decision. Virginia Minor claimed she had a right to vote by citing her citizenship under the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS rejected this argument and they did so by citing Article II and then by defining natural-born citizen. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark in two ways. One was a negative declaration that said:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The second was a positive declaration that NBCs are born to citizen parents.
Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. ...
Next, Wong Kim Ark restated the holding in Minor to be based on birth to citizen parents, which was NOT the same argument presented by Virginia Minor.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
This is the last point in Wong Kim Ark where the term "natural-born citizen" is used. Gray opts for a different term through the rest of the decision, "citizenship by birth," which is only defined by the 14th amendment — but as noted, the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
Nonsense. The dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis affirmed that NBC is defined as birth to citizen parents and that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship. The rest of the analysis was used to justify a separate type of citizenship by birth that was legally strong enough to justify superceding an international treaty to the contrary. But this type of citizenship was never called natural-born citizenship.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the BS claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen. It's still absolute, total, complete BS.
The only BS is what you just posted.