Once the Supreme Court rules Obama is not a natural-born citizen?

The 1875 case was a voting rights case (Minor v Happersett). The parties didn't brief the court on natural born citizenship. Since Virginia Minor was the child of 2 citizen parents, that was sufficient.

The court said that there were doubts about others, but didn't need to resolve those doubts for that case. The doubts were cleared up in the 1898 case US v Wong Kim Ark. WKA's parents couldn't become citizens under laws at that time.

The only way for WKA to be a citizen was to be born a citizen. The court said there were only 2 kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Since Chinese couldn't be naturalized, and anyone born in the US was a citizen, WKA was a citizen at birth, and therefore a natural born citizen.

Minor is never cited by courts for its definition of natural born citizens, Wong Kim Ark has been cited hundreds of times for its definition of natural born citizen. WKA is settled law.

Your question is fallacious because, quite simply, you don't understand what the 1875 ruling was. Regardless of how many times this has been stated, that ruling did NOT determine a definition of a natural born citizen. In fact, it specifically said it didn't need to make that determination for the purposes of that case.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.