Did you not read what I wrote?? You're either not paying attention or simply ignoring what was explained. Minor claimed a right to vote on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected this claim because she was already a citizen by virtue of being a natural born citizen. They spent several paragraphs explaining why her citizenship was NOT due to the 14th amendment. That definition was cited and affirmed 23 years later in the Wong Kim Ark decision (I may be off on the number of years between decisions). And I showed specifically where the issue of citizenship was listed as 2 out of the 6 points listed in the syllabus that summarized the decision. The criteria that made her a citizen (being born in the country to citizen parents) was as valid before the adoption the 14th amendment as it was SINCE its adoption. I know you don't like it, but it's there in writing. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
I did read what you wrote. And I've read what the court wrote. And it's almost as if we're reading different decisions. What the justice wrote was:
"We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, 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."
Nowhere does it affirm or deny her citizenship status. That was not a matter before the court. What was under consideration was whether Virginia Minor, as a U.S. citizen, had the right to vote. The court said no.
I did read what you wrote. And I've read what the court wrote. And it's almost as if we're reading different decisions. What the justice wrote was:
"We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, 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."
Nowhere does it affirm or deny her citizenship status. That was not a matter before the court. What was under consideration was whether Virginia Minor, as a U.S. citizen, had the right to vote. The court said no.