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!
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??
I really don't know how much plainer I can say it. Missouri state law barred women from voting. Minor argued that voting was a privilege of citizenship that (because of the 14th) states could not abridge. So the 14th was part of her argument--but not the citizenship part, the privileges part. The court looked at the relationship between citizenship (noting that Minor was a citizen before the 14th) and voting (noting that citizenship had never guaranteed suffrage). That's why they brought up the 14th.
I showed where the court said HER ARGUMENT was that she had a right to vote as a 14th amendment citizen
No, you didn't. She wasn't claiming to be a "14th amendment citizen." This is where your focus on the subordinate clause rather than the main subject and predicate of the sentence led you astray.
I didn't say the "direct question" was whether the 14th amendment conferred citizenship on Minor, I said that was HER ARGUMENT.
I see. But the court stated the question in the following ways:
"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 notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone."
"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 direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters."That's three times (at least) that they framed the question as one of voting rights. Seems to me that if her argument was actually about citizenship, as you claim, they would have stated the question that way at least once.