Here is the decision in Minor:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Everything before that is dicta.
And the dicta in Minor does not and never has attempted to explore the full meaning of NBC:
“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 [p168] parents. As 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 citizens.”
Remember...a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision...
So in your mind a statement that is used to reach a decision is dicta right
along with statements that are not used to reach the decision.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.
Ahh Mr. Rogers has been called up. The challenge with Mr. Rogers is to find the subterfuge, because his role is to confuse. In this case, for those with the time, reading Minor v. Happersett will probably show his deception, but for those without the time, settling the issue in Minor v. Happersett required that Elizabeth Minor be a citizen. The only definition for a citizen provided by the Constitution before the 14th Amendment was that in Article II Section 1, for a natural born citizen. Like every term used in the Constitution but treason, our common language and common law at the time of the framers was the source for the definition. But natural born citizens were by far the majority.
Since requirements for citizenship were different in many or most of the colonies, the Constitution mandated that Congress create “An uniform code of naturalization.” But they hadn't gotten around to it, and Minor v. Happersett was constructed to be independent of the 14th Amendment, since the Minor's (her husband was her attorney) claim was that the 14th gave her suffrage under equal protection. If she wasn't a citizen no decision was possible. The only defined citizens were natural born. So defining natural born citizenship was absolutely essential to the decision. A natural born citizen is a natural born citizen is a citizen, whether running for office or not. A definition is about as full a meaning as there is for NBC, and that is what Justice Waite provided. That defintion was cited in several dozen cases, including Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg, affirming the recognition of Minor as precedence
Remember, Mr. Rogers is here to confuse you.