Minor v. Happersett concerned a case where a woman...

Minor v. Happersett concerned a case where a woman, Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, attempted to register to vote on October 15, 1872, in St. Louis County, Missouri, but was refused on the grounds that she was a woman. The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that Mrs. Minor was a citizen, and not an alien or foreign, because she was born in the United States of citizen parents. It does not anywhere state that, in order to be a citizen, both parents must be citizens. There is a passage that reads: “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.” Id., at 167-68. This was mentioned to confirm that Mrs. Minor was indeed a citizen.

Nowhere in the opinion is any kind of ‘Article II ‘natural born citizen’ to be found. Your particular quote, “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ appears nowhere in the published Court opinion. Only two conclusions are possible: Either you made that fictitious quote up out of whole cloth, or the source upon whom you rely did. That is not a valid quote from Minor v. Happersett.

Read more at The Daily Pen