[Forty-Niner]

“More’s the pity they didn’t spell it out for those who followed.”

The Founders include many well read and educated men, however they did not forsee the need to gild the lily for those 200 years later. Fortunately the US Supreme Court has stepped up to the plate and determined the issue less than 100 years from the founding, and provided an understanding of NBC in numerious “citizenship cases, “ Minor v Happersett” being only one of many.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The High Court did no such thing.

[Forty-Niner]

For those that are married to foreign citizen husbands, you should be aware that prior to women being given the vote in 1922, a women’s nationality followed that of her husband’s. A woman did not hold citizenship separate from that of her father/husband.

In the 1700-1800’s marrying a non citizen would have changed your citizenship. When/if he became a naturalized US citizen you would regain your US citizenship.

In our more enlightened and modern times, women do indeed hold citizenship separate from that of the men in their lives.

[PapaNew]

Mr. Forty-Niner, you need to reread Minor v. Happersett, unless you talking about something other than Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The Court here said that this specific issue (NBC if parents are not citizens) had not been decided nor did they need to decide it for this case (a voting right case, not a POTUS case as some in this thread have asserted).