Replies

Why????? No one argued that she wasn’t a citizen. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. Whether that citizen has a right to vote is a different issue. That was the question before the court. What was the holding? Be Exact. The holding was that the Constitution did not give women the right to vote. Their citizenship was irrelevant. Definition of NBC is not pertinant to this case. Where were the cites of cases,or the the arguments or in depth discussion. There is none because it is not relevant to the case. Thus, obiter dictum.

With the following sentence in MvH, the Court indicated that it had to consider Minor's citizenship.

It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The Court immediately goes on to say that the basis of the plaintiff's argument is predicated upon her being a citizen.

The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

In order to address the question of whether or not Minor had the right to vote, the Court had to first address the plaintiff's assertion that Minor was a citizen because that was the plaintiff's sole basis for bringing the case. The Court agreed with the plaintiff's argument that Minor was a citizen. The Court disagreed that her citizenship inherently granted her the right to vote.

Obiter dictum, as you know, is latin for "said in passing." The Court did not comment on Minor's citizenship in passing. Their determination that she was a citizen before the adoption of the 14th amendment was a basis for their holding that no citizen, male or female, had an inherent right to vote granted by the Constitution.

Bingo and in the SCOTUS case Ex Parte Lockwood it stated this refering to Minor v Happersett:

“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;”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116

Her citizenship was not in dispute.
It was a fact NOT IN DISPUTE.

NO ONE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS A CITIZEN. Not Happersett, not the Court in Missouri...NO ONE. It is not part of the HOLDING.

I want you to find me the EXACT sentence where Scotus tells you Minor’s parents were American Citizens.