[BuckeyeTexan]

We're not discussing those cases. We're discussing MvH. I've shown you the Court's declaration that the question before the Court included the plaintiff's assertion that Minor was a citizen and the Court's declaration that it had to affirm Minor's citizenship before it could address her right to vote. If you still don't get that Minor's citizenship was not mentioned in passing, then I can't help you.

[RummyChick]

He is talking about PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Article III talks about judicial power.

Btw, Minor was a CITIZEN of Missouri . This fact was not in dispute. How do you figure that she was a citizen of a different state than Happersett who was acting on Missouri’s law?

The court threw out the complaint. It made it’s way to SCOTUS.

Now tell me how the two parties are from different states?????

Btw,it is important to know what happens with a demurrer.The judge has to assume all material facts are true.

You got that????

It’s a “so what” if they are true decision.

[RummyChick]

I went back and read the ENTIRE passage. Your understanding is much worse than I thought.

The court is using that passage to show that there have been many cases involving women and personal jurisdiction and not one raised an objection based on sex.

Good Lord, that excerpt has nothing to do with putting her own citizenship on the record.