He is talking about PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Article III talks about judicial power.
Btw, Minor was a CITIZEN of Missouri . This fact was not in dispute. How do you figure that she was a citizen of a different state than Happersett who was acting on Missouri’s law?
The court threw out the complaint. It made it’s way to SCOTUS.
Now tell me how the two parties are from different states?????
Btw,it is important to know what happens with a demurrer.The judge has to assume all material facts are true.
You got that????
It’s a “so what” if they are true decision.
You miss the entire point of MvH. The question was not simply - does a woman have a right to vote? The question was - did the 14th amendment grant a woman the right to vote when it conferred citizenship upon "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
The Court determined that women were citizens before the adoption of the 14th amendment but that prior to the 14th, the Constitution did not specifically describe who were citizens. So the Court undertook the task of determining who were citizens prior to the 14th.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.Before the Court could answer the question of whether or not suffrage was a privilege of citizenship, the Court first had to answer the question of who were citizens before the adoption of the 14th amendment.
If you cannot accept that premise as true then there is nothing more to discuss. Further, I've had enough of your snark. If and when you can accept the above the premise and do so politely, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Otherwise, take your snark elsewhere.