Minor is without a doubt the MOST important Supreme Court decision on the subject of what a Natural Born Citizen is. Those that want to muddy the waters on this subject will do anything to make it irrelevant. It is the one decision they fear the most. They will bring out English Common law, Blackstone anything they can think of to muddy the waters and they will fight to the death on this subject.

The nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers was Vattel.

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously:

"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 (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Minor was unanimous and written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite; a unanimous opinion by the Chief is the strongest statement the Court can make.

Here is the nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers. This is the language our founding fathers followed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Vattel`s The Law of Nations or the Principles of the Laws of Nature: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

All of the cases listed below refer to Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) as the authority of citizens and Natural Born Citizen

Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)

Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) because it cites Minor as a continuing precedent on the voting rights issue 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. This kills the argument that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment. Here is the relevant passage as it appears at Justia today un-scrubbed:

“More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . , absent, of course, the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid.”

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978),

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937),

US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941),

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935),

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911),

Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939),

Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934),

Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),

Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907),

Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904),

Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969),

Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962),

N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928),

Slaughter-House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873),

Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982),

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 816 (1971),

Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904),

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944),

South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905),

In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945),

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898),

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968),