Replies

So the 14th was part of her argument--but not the citizenship part, the privileges part.

I've given the specific language. How much "plainer" does it need to be for you?? Read it again:

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 argument ... HER ARGUMENT ... is based on being a citizen via the 14th amendment. This is what it means when it says "as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject the jurisdiction thereof" ... This is the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. She's not making the argument that she's a citizen prior to the 14th amendment.

This is where your focus on the subordinate clause rather than the main subject and predicate of the sentence led you astray.

Sorry, but it is a compound sentence and propoition. My focus is on ALL the words and the CONTEXT, which is clear as day, and all you're doing is "dancing" and denying the obvious. The court rejected her arugment and I've shown ALL the words that explain this very clearly. What point does it serve for the court to talk about anyone being born to citizen parents if not to make a distinction between natural-born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship, which the court said had doubts that needed to be resolved??

That's three times (at least) that they framed the question as one of voting rights.

The first time says: "since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment" ... the second part says ... "s a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," (citing the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment) ... and by the time they get to the third part, the court has already rejected the citizenship via the 14th amendment, so they are NOW focusing on whether there's a broader right to vote based on being a citizen WITHOUT the provision of the 14th amendment. That's three strikes. You're out.

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.

I've already explained that the court brought up "the direct question" AFTER they rejected Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument. That's what they entire previous paragraph was about. Read it.

Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. 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 ve shown ALL the words that explain this very clearly. What point does it serve for the court to talk about anyone being born to citizen parents if not to make a distinction between natural-born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship, which the court said had doubts that needed to be resolved??