“How about the specific text which further solidified Minor’s HOLDING, and it’s relevance?”
If you are talking about “Lockwood”, I am already working on an Internet Article to address that WILD GOOSE CHASE. Which is probably like 2 or 3 in the future. (Next is probably, “The Unkindest Cut Of All” one that I am working on.)
But basically, the citizenship status of the female lawyer is irrelevant. The decision would have been the same if she was natural born or naturalized. Just like in Minor v. Happersett.
The issue was the 14th Amendment stuff and whether it added stuff to citizenship or not. Which MvH said it didn’t, like voting and practicing law. Therefore, the case was NOT used to DEFINE citizenship but instead just to compare before and after stuff on the 14th Amendment.
As far as dots to connect, there aren’t any. Like the Ankeny v. Governor case in 2009 said:
“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12”
Not bad for somebody who isn’t even a lawyer, huh???
Its truly abysmal.
Actually I wasn’t speaking of Lockwood. Lockwood states the the statements on citizenship in Minor were a HOLDING: “In Minor, this court held”.
Go read Donofrio’s site. ALL of it.
Your internet articles aren’t doing anything other than rehashing the broken arguments made by others, which I repeat, have already been argued here by others, who have made better arguments by the way, and still failed.
Minor’s citizenship WAS relevant to the case, that was the means by which the case was brought. Apparently you have not READ the whole case! Tell us, what was that case all about ultimately?? Come on, an intelligent person could at least guess.... Women’s Suffrage. And you want me to take you seriously???? LMAO