So you are saying that he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents?
Her citizenship is in dispute and germane to the case according to you but he NEVER discusses the citizenship of her parents . He never states that her Parents were American Citizens. NOT ONCE. NO WHERE. A fact you claim is in dispute and germane to the case. A fact that is germane must be addressed.
So you claim he addresses a fact in dispute with this:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parentsAs to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizen”
You better think about that for a minute.
He implies with this:
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE.
Maybe it will sink in to you.
But I doubt it.
Btw, a FACT in dispute has to be addressed outright. Not by implication.
What Minor decided not to decide was whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It was not necessary for the Court to make that decision because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen.” Now you can readily see from the different nomenclature included by the Founders and Framers in the Constitution (“natural born Citizen” v. “Citizen of the United States”) that Minor did not call such a potential citizen an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Nor could such a potential citizen be a “natural born Citizen” given the Court’s own definition of the phrase. We know that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 decided that such a person is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong did not hold that such a person is a “natural born Citizen.”