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.
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??