JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Zero evidence is provided for this garbage. This rates as fish wrap. This article by The Paraclete was garbage a decade ago and it is still garbage.
WHY would anyone even cite crap about Justia when PDF copies of the official U.S. Reports are available at the Library of Congress. Unlike Justia, those do not come with the standard Justia disclaimer for dimwits:
Minor v. Happersett at Justia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Would you like a link to Minor v. Happersett?
No, I provided a link to the U.S. Reports copy at the Library of Congress with my #11. I even went further than a link to the opinion, and linked to specific pages for my specific quotes.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
I also have a full copy of the Record of Transcript for Minor v. Happersett and quoted from the Agreed Statement of the two parties to the case.
“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;”
It's true, women born 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. Not only that, but little boys and girls born within the jurisdiction of the United States, even born to illegal aliens, are considered citizens of the United States. Nothing in Minor says otherwise. No question of citizenship was before the Court in Minor, and no question of citizenship was decided in Minor.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP
8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
- - - - - - - - - -
Regardless, Lockwood is the holy grail of cases which stand in support of Minor on the definition of federal citizenship because the Supreme Court stated the words, “this court held” in relation to Minor’s definition of federal citizenship. And Lockwood is the only case which appears to have been tampered with at sites other than Justia.
You "forgot" to add a case citation and link to your birther blather about Lockwood. On original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court denied Belva Lockwood's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. It is not a case about citizenship or presidential eligibility. No question of citizenship was at issue in either Minor or Lockwood.
The issue was whether Lockwood's unquestioned citizenship included some right to practise law in the state courts. Such was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States. Petition denied.
Not only was Belva Lockwood a known citizen at the time of the 1894 opinion rejecting her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, she ran for President of the United States ten years earlier in 1884, as the nominee of the Equal Rights Party, and she received several thousand votes. She wittily described Republicans as "the Stag Party."
On March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood had become the first woman admitted to practice law before the United States Supreme Court. The oath was administered by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite.
As for Belva Lockwood's Petitition for a Writ of Mandamus, to order the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice before that court, it is not relevant to the issue of citizenship or presidential eligibility, much less the gold standard on those issues.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep154/usrep154116/usrep154116.pdf
116 OCTOBER TERM, 1893.Opinion of the Court.
In re LOCKWOOD, Petitioner.
ORIGINAL.
No number. Submitted April 24, 1894. Decided May 26, 1894.
It is for the Supreme Court of the State of Virginia to construe the statute of that State which provides that “ any person duly authorized and practising as counsel or attorney at law in any State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may practise as such in the courts of this State,” and to determine whether the word “person,” as therein used, is confined to males, and whether women are admitted to practise law in that Commonwealth.The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Joseph Christian for the petitioner.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an application by Belva A. Lockwood for leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practise law in that court. Mrs. Lockwood has been for many years a member of the bar of this court and of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and also, she avers, of the bars of several States of the Union. Her complaint is that she recently applied to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to be admitted to the practice of law in that court, and the court denied her application, notwithstanding it is provided by a statute of that State that “any person duly authorized and practising as counsel or attorney at law in any State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may practise as such in the courts of this State.” Code Va. 1887, § 3192; and she alleges that the only reason for the rejection of her application was that she is a woman. It appears that no record was made of the refusal complained of, but she presents a certificate of the clerk of that court to the effect that the application was made and rejected, though “no order was made at the time.” Nothing is stated in the papers before us as to the residence of the petitioner, whether in the District of Columbia or in some other State than the State of Virginia. Our interposition seems to be invoked upon the ground that petitioner has been1 denied a privilege or immunity belonging to her as a citizen of the United States, and enjoyed by the women of Virginia, in contravention of the second section of Article IV of the Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Miner 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; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the Federal Constitution.
In Bradwell v. The State, 16 Wall. 130, it was held that the right to practise law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practise law in the courts of a State is one of those powers that was not transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license.
Section 3192 of the Code of Virginia quoted in this application is one of twelve sections constituting chap. 154 of that Code, entitled, “Of Attorneys-at-Law Generally.” Section 3193 reads: “Every such person shall produce, before each court in which he intends to practise, satisfactory evidence of his being so licensed or authorized, and take an oath that he will honestly demean himself in the practice of the law, and to the best of his ability execute his office of attorney-at- law; and also, when he is licensed in this State, take the oath of fidelity to the Commonwealth.”
It was for the Supreme Court of Appeals to construe the statute of Virginia in question, and to determine whether the word “person” as therein used is confined to males, and whether women are admitted to practise law in that Commonwealth.
Leave denied.