Replies

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.

You missed the basis of HER ARGUMENT:

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.