[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

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.

[edge919]

She's arguing that the 14th Amendment forbade any state from abridging her "privileges or immunities," among which are suffrage.

... 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??