Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
You may have been over it, but you have blinded yourself to what they said. She argued that as a citizen, the equal protection clause meant she could not be denied the right to vote.

Sorry, but the only person who has "blinded" himself is you. Read the decision. Minor's claim of citizenship is a central part of the case:

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.

Her citizenship was part of the question and the court (part of which you quoted) rejected her argument on the basis of the 14th amendment because she was, by the court's definition, a natural born citizen.

If she had an alien parent, THEN they would have needed to determine if NBC applied to those born with alien parents - but she did not have an alien parent.

Sorry, but the court said if she was not born in the country to citizen parents, then doubt would need to be resolved about her simply being a citizen. If she was a natural born citizen, there would be no doubt. Thus, anyone who does not meet the definition of born in the country to citizen parents is not a natural born citizen. They MIGHT be a citizen, such as through the 14th amendment, but they are not a natural born citizen.

205 posted on 06/22/2011 2:15:46 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

“Sorry, but the court said if she was not born in the country to citizen parents, then doubt would need to be resolved about her simply being a citizen.”

Given that the 14th had passed, this statement is simply false.

The court found there was no doubt about her having been a citizen by birth, and it was admitted in the case - so citizenship by birth was not the issue.

I’ve quoted the court case. Your quote confirms what I wrote:

“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.”

In this case, it didn’t matter if she was a citizen by birth or naturalized. Does citizenship confer the right to vote? That is what they were asked, and that is what the decision is about.


206 posted on 06/22/2011 2:22:48 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson