Her citizenship was not in dispute.
It was a fact NOT IN DISPUTE.
NO ONE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS A CITIZEN. Not Happersett, not the Court in Missouri...NO ONE. It is not part of the HOLDING.
I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.
The reason they didn’t dispute she was a citizen was because “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” (Minor v Happersett).
Justice Waite did not say it is not necessary to solve the issue of “parental citizenship.” He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. They used Article 2 Section 1 to avoid the 14th. It’s really that simple to understand.
I never said Minor's citizenship was in dispute. The Court didn't say it was in dispute either. The Court said in MvH that citizenship must be affirmed on the record before it can address any other question.
Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed.The Court had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address whether or not she had the right to vote. Thus the affirmation of her citizenship was not mentioned in passing. It was the basis of the plaintiff's argument and the Court considered it and spoke extensively about it as part of their decision.
I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.
Strawman.