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.
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.