Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
People who can read it for themselves will see that you've been lying. The massive parts that you quote don't contain the term NBC. This means that you aren't sane because you're reaching a conclusion that isn't actually within what you quote. Sucks to be you.
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.
No she didn't.
The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.She argued that as a citizen, the 14th Amendment gave her the right to vote. Big difference.
You need to go back and read the next couple of paragraphs. You missed the basis of HER ARGUMENT:
The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The part in bold above is the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. If she wasn't making this argument, then you'll need to explain why the Minor court said:
The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her.
No I didn't. You're misreading it. She's arguing that the 14th Amendment forbade any state from abridging her "privileges or immunities," among which are suffrage. You're focusing on the sentence's subordinate clause and ignoring its primary subject. "The argument is that...she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship."
If she wasn't making this argument, then you'll need to explain why the Minor court said:
Now you need to read the next paragraph after what you quote:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case, we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.The court is saying, clear as can be, that the case is about whether voting is one of the "privileges and immunities of citizens" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, not whether the 14th Amendment made Minor a citizen.
Court opinions often include material that is considered an aside (it is what is known as dicta).
Edge919 "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."
There was no reason to determine how she acquired citizenship whether by birth or naturalization. As the question before the court applied to any citizen. As shown in the final paragraph - "the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,"
Edge919 "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)."
Justice Gray quoted the Minor case to highlight this part "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."
Read the paragraphs that preceed the Minor quotation.
"Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:"
"The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." 16 Wall. 73.
[16 Wall. 73. is the Slaughterhouse Cases in which Justice Miller wrote that children of aliens born in the US were not citzens. Justice Gray then goes on to explain why this statement is dicta.]
"This was wholly aside from the question in judgment ...Cohens v. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat. 264, 399."
[Justice Gray then goes on to explain why Justice Miller and the other Justices were not committed to the view expressed in the Slaughterhouse Cases because two years later the same justices said that the question of children born in the US to alien parents was not decided in Minor]
"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. ... Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
[Justice Gray then describes the Minor decision. But doesn't say the Virgina Minor is a natural born Citizen, only a citizen of the United States.]
"The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship."
Edge919 "That's why they had to postpone a decision."
I thought they postponed the decision to get verification that Obama was born in Hawaii, they certainly weren't trying to determine the citizenship status of his parents.
... BECAUSE she was claiming to be a citizen by virtue of being "born or naturalized in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction." The court rejected this argument by explaining how women were citizens WITHOUT this provision and it specifically rejected that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on her. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
The court is saying, clear as can be, that the case is about whether voting is one of the "privileges and immunities of citizens" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, not whether the 14th Amendment made Minor a citizen.
All you've done is dodge my question. You're making my argument for me, by showing that the court didn't need to talk about natural-born citizenship because the decision should was ALSO relevant to those who aren't natural-born citizens. What would be the point of introducing a definition of NBC when the direct question would impact ALL citizens?? I know why, but do you AND are you willing to admit it??
This wasn't dicta. It's time to quit fooling yourself. Minor's argument was based on being a citizen through the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. The court said that persons who were born to citizen parents didn't need the 14th amendment, therefore establishing a material difference between natural-born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship by birth. Don't dodge the question, but DEAL WITH IT HONESTLY. Why else would they talk about citizen parents?? A circular statement doesn't answer the question.
There was no reason to determine how she acquired citizenship whether by birth or naturalization.
Yes, actually there was. Because they were trying to figure out if becoming a citizen through the 14th amendment conferred privileges and immunities that did not exist prior.
As the question before the court applied to any citizen. As shown in the final paragraph -
Yes, it did apply to any citizen, so what purpose was the court trying to address by recognizing two classes of citizens by birth?? I know the answer. Do you?? Will you admit it??
Read the paragraphs that preceed the Minor quotation.
Yes, the Slaughterhouses cases partially defined the exclusions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Minor was not about an exclusion to the subject clause but an exclusion to the entire 14th amendment. That's why the Minor court said there were citizens WITHOUT the citizen provision of the 14th amendment. The Minor definition could not be used to make Ark a citizen, so Justice Gray had to invent a separate way of declaring him to be a citizen.
[Justice Gray then goes on to explain why Justice Miller and the other Justices were not committed to the view expressed in the Slaughterhouse Cases because two years later the same justices said that the question of children born in the US to alien parents was not decided in Minor]
You need to re-read this passage. It doesn't say the justices were not committed to the view. It says they didn't understand at the time that they WERE committed to the view that there would be another citizenship exclusion to the 14th amendment. The same justices who voted for the exclusions in Slaughterhouse were the same judges who unanimously decided that Virginia Minor was NOT a citizen on the basis of the 14th amendment.
[Justice Gray then describes the Minor decision. But doesn't say the Virgina Minor is a natural born Citizen, only a citizen of the United States.]
He says she was a citizen of the United States because she was born in the country to citizen parents, which satisfies the definition of NBC in the previous paragraphs. Why does Gray say anything about her being born to citizen parents here?? Don't dodge the question this time.
I thought they postponed the decision to get verification that Obama was born in Hawaii, they certainly weren't trying to determine the citizenship status of his parents.
I didn't say they were trying to determine the citizenship status of his parents. I said they couldn't find a legal reason to deny the objection. Why do you think they would want to get verification that Obama was born in Hawaii when Obama's legal counsel had already responded to the ballot objection??
I really admire the way you immediately follow a demonstration of your inability to comprehend plain English with this advice to others.
All you've done is dodge my question.
Let's see, what was your question...Oh yes,
If she wasn't making this argument, then you'll need to explain why the Minor court said: The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Because they were demonstrating that citizenship did not necessarily entail suffrage. Again--as the court stated in the part I quoted--Minor wasn't claiming that the 14th made her a citizen, but rather that, because it prohibited a state from abridging the privileges of a citizen, Missouri could not deny her the right to vote. The court pointed out there had always been citizens who couldn't vote, so clearly voting wasn't a privilege of citizenship.
Remember, the court said "The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state" and "The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters." Why would they say that if the question was whether the 14th made her a citizen, as you claim?
The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Do you understand what the words "did not confer citizenship on her" means??? If Minor wasn't claiming to be a 14th amendment citizen, why did it specifically say the 14th amendment did not confer citizenship on her??
I'm not dodging. I answered your question twice, but I guess I didn't spell it out simply enough. I'll try to go step by step.
Do you understand what the words "did not confer citizenship on her" means???
Yes. Yes, I do.
If Minor wasn't claiming to be a 14th amendment citizen, why did it specifically say the 14th amendment did not confer citizenship on her??
It was part of saying that she was already a citizen before the 14th and could not vote, so therefore voting was not a privilege of citizenship.
You like to take one little snippet out of context and hold it up as proof of your claims--a subordinate clause out of a whole sentence above, a single sentence out of a whole paragraph here. In general, context helps when trying to understand the meaning of a snippet. Your sentence is in here:
The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.The question the court is dealing with here is whether voting falls under "all the privileges and immunities," as Minor argued. Pointing out that the 14th didn't make her a citizen is just a restatement of the previous sentence, the one I bolded. It's merely part of their overall argument that there had always been citizens that couldn't vote, so voting wasn't part of the p&i. As we see in the very next sentences:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.If, as you claim, the direct question is whether the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, why did the court say "the direct question is whether all citizens are necessarily voters"?
In other words, your turn.
Right, so why did they say this?? You're only giving a superficial answer. If they were addressing voting rights for all citizens, why are they bringing up the 14th amendment??
You like to take one little snippet out of context and hold it up as proof of your claims--a subordinate clause out of a whole sentence above, a single sentence out of a whole paragraph here.
Dude, you need to go back and re-read what I've posted. I didn't take anything out of context and it wasn't one little snippet. I showed where the court said HER ARGUMENT was that she had a right to vote as a 14th amendment citizen ... that's what "born or naturalized in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction" means. From there they define natural-born citizen AND they define every other known way to become a citizen before they said the 14th amendment didn't confer citizenship on her.
Pointing out that the 14th didn't make her a citizen is just a restatement of the previous sentence, the one I bolded.
The part you bolded supports my argument, not yours. They said she was always a citizen by defining her as being born to citizen parents. The Wong Kim Ark decision repeated this criteria to affirm the holding more than 20 years later.
t's merely part of their overall argument that there had always been citizens that couldn't vote, so voting wasn't part of the p&i.
Again, you're making my argument for me, because this setion says "AS AMENDED" referring back to the 14th amendment argument.
If, as you claim, the direct question is whether the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, why did the court say "the direct question is whether all citizens are necessarily voters"?
I didn't say the "direct question" was whether the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, I said that was HER ARGUMENT. The court rejected her argument by showing that the broader p&i of citizenship didn't include a right to vote. But now, as you've admitted, the court rejected her argument by saying she was a citizen PRIOR to the 14th amendment ... which is because she fit the court's definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Thanks!
Right, so why did they say this?? You're only giving a superficial answer. If they were addressing voting rights for all citizens, why are they bringing up the 14th amendment??
I really don't know how much plainer I can say it. Missouri state law barred women from voting. Minor argued that voting was a privilege of citizenship that (because of the 14th) states could not abridge. So the 14th was part of her argument--but not the citizenship part, the privileges part. The court looked at the relationship between citizenship (noting that Minor was a citizen before the 14th) and voting (noting that citizenship had never guaranteed suffrage). That's why they brought up the 14th.
I showed where the court said HER ARGUMENT was that she had a right to vote as a 14th amendment citizen
No, you didn't. She wasn't claiming to be a "14th amendment citizen." This is where your focus on the subordinate clause rather than the main subject and predicate of the sentence led you astray.
I didn't say the "direct question" was whether the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, I said that was HER ARGUMENT.
I see. But the court stated the question in the following ways:
"The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone."
"The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge."
"The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters."That's three times (at least) that they framed the question as one of voting rights. Seems to me that if her argument was actually about citizenship, as you claim, they would have stated the question that way at least once.
I've given the specific language. How much "plainer" does it need to be for you?? Read it again:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The argument ... HER ARGUMENT ... is based on being a citizen via the 14th amendment. This is what it means when it says "as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject the jurisdiction thereof" ... This is the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. She's not making the argument that she's a citizen prior to the 14th amendment.
This is where your focus on the subordinate clause rather than the main subject and predicate of the sentence led you astray.
Sorry, but it is a compound sentence and propoition. My focus is on ALL the words and the CONTEXT, which is clear as day, and all you're doing is "dancing" and denying the obvious. The court rejected her arugment and I've shown ALL the words that explain this very clearly. What point does it serve for the court to talk about anyone being born to citizen parents if not to make a distinction between natural-born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship, which the court said had doubts that needed to be resolved??
That's three times (at least) that they framed the question as one of voting rights.
The first time says: "since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment" ... the second part says ... "s a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," (citing the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment) ... and by the time they get to the third part, the court has already rejected the citizenship via the 14th amendment, so they are NOW focusing on whether there's a broader right to vote based on being a citizen WITHOUT the provision of the 14th amendment. That's three strikes. You're out.
Seems to me that if her argument was actually about citizenship, as you claim, they would have stated the question that way at least once.
I've already explained that the court brought up "the direct question" AFTER they rejected Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument. That's what they entire previous paragraph was about. Read it.
Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption ve shown ALL the words that explain this very clearly. What point does it serve for the court to talk about anyone being born to citizen parents if not to make a distinction between natural-born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship, which the court said had doubts that needed to be resolved??
I admire your persistence. It’s just unfortunate that you’re so wrong about this.
You say this, but all you have is dancing and denial. It’s okay to admit that I’m right. I’ve proven it several times over.
Only in your mind, my FRiend, only in your mind.
No, I’ve proven it in writing ... again, several times ... and still, all you offer is dancing and denial ... and what happened to “so this will be my last post to you on the topic ...”?? I knew this was a drama-queen lie.
You know, writing something on an Internet forum isn’t “proving” it, no matter how many times you write it.
And these last few posts haven’t been on the topic. But I do like being called a drama queen by someone given to writing in all caps with multiple question marks.
Sorry, but this denial is pointless because the citations I've given speak for themselves ... plus your constant dancing, ducking and baseless denials.
But I do like being called a drama queen by someone given to writing in all caps with multiple question marks.
Cinderella, the shoe fits. Wear it with pride. I use all caps to EMPHASIZE selected words ... and the multiple question marks are to help poor readers like yourself understand when you're being asked a question. You've ducked the questions several times, so the multiple question marks were obviously effective. And you're right. You aren't posting on topic ... but then you claimed you weren't going to post any more. Perhaps it's better to find a topic you understand??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.