I'm not dodging. I answered your question twice, but I guess I didn't spell it out simply enough. I'll try to go step by step.
Do you understand what the words "did not confer citizenship on her" means???
Yes. Yes, I do.
If Minor wasn't claiming to be a 14th amendment citizen, why did it specifically say the 14th amendment did not confer citizenship on her??
It was part of saying that she was already a citizen before the 14th and could not vote, so therefore voting was not a privilege of citizenship.
You like to take one little snippet out of context and hold it up as proof of your claims--a subordinate clause out of a whole sentence above, a single sentence out of a whole paragraph here. In general, context helps when trying to understand the meaning of a snippet. Your sentence is in here:
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. That she had before its adoption.The question the court is dealing with here is whether voting falls under "all the privileges and immunities," as Minor argued. Pointing out that the 14th didn't make her a citizen is just a restatement of the previous sentence, the one I bolded. It's merely part of their overall argument that there had always been citizens that couldn't vote, so voting wasn't part of the p&i. As we see in the very next sentences:
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.If, as you claim, the direct question is whether the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, why did the court say "the direct question is whether all citizens are necessarily voters"?
In other words, your turn.
Right, so why did they say this?? You're only giving a superficial answer. If they were addressing voting rights for all citizens, why are they bringing up the 14th amendment??
You like to take one little snippet out of context and hold it up as proof of your claims--a subordinate clause out of a whole sentence above, a single sentence out of a whole paragraph here.
Dude, you need to go back and re-read what I've posted. I didn't take anything out of context and it wasn't one little snippet. I showed where the court said HER ARGUMENT was that she had a right to vote as a 14th amendment citizen ... that's what "born or naturalized in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction" means. From there they define natural-born citizen AND they define every other known way to become a citizen before they said the 14th amendment didn't confer citizenship on her.
Pointing out that the 14th didn't make her a citizen is just a restatement of the previous sentence, the one I bolded.
The part you bolded supports my argument, not yours. They said she was always a citizen by defining her as being born to citizen parents. The Wong Kim Ark decision repeated this criteria to affirm the holding more than 20 years later.
t's merely part of their overall argument that there had always been citizens that couldn't vote, so voting wasn't part of the p&i.
Again, you're making my argument for me, because this setion says "AS AMENDED" referring back to the 14th amendment argument.
If, as you claim, the direct question is whether the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, why did the court say "the direct question is whether all citizens are necessarily voters"?
I didn't say the "direct question" was whether the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, I said that was HER ARGUMENT. The court rejected her argument by showing that the broader p&i of citizenship didn't include a right to vote. But now, as you've admitted, the court rejected her argument by saying she was a citizen PRIOR to the 14th amendment ... which is because she fit the court's definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Thanks!