... 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??
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?