Psst. Next time you decide to play lawyer, you ought to know that the word is “PRECEDENT” not “PRECEDENCE”. Of course I have to assume that you do not have any legal training, otherwise you would understand that in the first paragraph of the opinion the Court states that the ONLY issue it is deciding is whether the female plaintiff has a right to vote.
“The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”
----
"But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:
“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.” (Emphasis added.)
That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.
It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.
But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens".
- - - - - -
-End Snip-
To repeat, "that's a direct 'HOLDING' of the case."
You should know that's NOT dictum or dicta or obit dicta BUT the "HOLDING."
The Supreme Court of the United States holds that Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. "Psst"... Obama is not legitimate.
You’re correct; I’m not a lawyer.
But right now there are one Hell of a lot of Democrats wishing they didn’t understand the significance of Donofrio’s finding in Minor vs. Happersett.
Are you saying/meaning that within the determination of an ‘ONLY’ issue other declarations have no substance or validity in law?