Replies

Waite in unequivocal terms makes clear that the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. No question of Minor's citizenship was being asked of the Court, nor was the Court answering any such question. So said Waite.

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it? Here's what happened:

In Minor v Happersett, the court sought to answer this question, "Does being an American citizen in and of itself make one eligible to vote under the Constitution because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?" To answer this they made two determinations:
1. Given that only citizens could vote, was Minor a citizen? They construed the natural-born clause of Article 2, Section 1 to find that Minor was a natural-born citizen, that is, one born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens. This established as a precedent the meaning of "natural born citizen." This is, indeed, a legally binding meaning of "natural born citizen."

2. Did Minor's status as a U.S. citizen give her, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to vote? The court found, correctly, that it did not since suffrage was not specifically given to female citizens in the Constitution, but only to male citizens.

the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote.

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it?

"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."

That, in case you missed it, was Chief Justice Waite mischaracterizing his own decision.

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it?

Our new troll's objective here is confuse and muck up like a FogBowBlower. It is quite obvious.

As I have already said, I am not a lawyer. So, go use your arguments against Leo Donofrio.

Unless, of course, you just want to rant out of frustration and will not face a legal argument. In that case, rant away. I don’t give a damn what either of you has to say, particularly after reading some of the crap Obots have been bleating the past 24 hours.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

He will be civil, as always. For him these issues are an exercise, kind of like calisthenics for the rest of us.

Are you now demanding that people should actually read Supreme Court cases before making sweeping and definitive pronouncements on them?

That's kind of raising the bar a bit, isn't it?