In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, 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 of the constitution as since ...
The underlined parts kill the Obot arguments. This acknowledges the criteria of NBC and says that women under that definition are as much citizens since the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. IOW, the 14th amendment did NOT define their citizenship, nor would it for any NBC.
In the WKA decision, Fuller quotes the Vattel definition of NBC, so obviously he's going to uphold Minor's definition, plus he says in that dissent that the doubts that Minor expressed were resolved in Elk v. Wilkins, meaning the children of aliens couldn't be citizens under the 14th amendment since no one could be who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
Luria seems to confuse the issue somewhat by using the term "native" instead of "natural-born" ... however by citing Minor, the definition of native = NBC, in that BOTH are defined by being born in the country to citizen parents. These rulings do add an extra level of consistency to the NBC definition .. but I'm no lawyer either. But you shouldn't have to be a lawyer when the language is so clear.
Oh my gosh it is good to hear someone else understands and can see the simplicity of it!! lol
Your position isn't very strong if you have to remove parts in order to satisfy your viewpoint…I've explained why there's a legal precedent expressed in Minor and you're trying remove the parts of the syllabus that agree with me.
Edge, misstating my position will not support your argument. You are smart enough to know my proposed removal of Section 2. of the syllabus was offered solely to encourage you to focus on the relevant portions of the decision.
Most readers will understand the court would not have taken the case if Minor had not been a citizen; the fact she was even an ordinary citizen prompted the court to decide the issue of whether the Constitution or the 14thA gave her the right to vote. There were no arguments heard on NBC, they were not necessary, Minor qualified as a citizen. Nor did the decision apply only to natural born citizens.
If you change your argument from “the court decisively ruled on NBC” (which it did not for reasons stated here and upthread) to “there is legal precedent”, as you seem to do above, then we agree.
Indeed, Minor has enormous legal value to our NBC argument.