Replies

Now aside from deliberately omitting portions of quotes to reverse their meaning, you are conflating one paragraph of the case with the entire decision.

One paragraph?? Are you daft?? In post #292 I specifically mentioned several paragraphs that support one another. Why are you deliberately ignoring that I've given you these paragraphs as well as the complete context??

You seem to be under the impression Minor vs. Happersett decided that their were different classes of citizens in terms of "natural born" and "not naturalized, not natural born."

Justice Waite mentions two different classes of persons when he defines citizens. One class is born in the country to citizen parents. This class are called the natives and NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. Another class of persons are those who "some authorities" consider to be citizens by virtue of birth without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Waite specifically distinguishes this class of persons from those who constitute NBCs. "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

Here is what the case was about: Beginning

It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

You're making my argument for me. You need to read ALL the words. I've highlighted above the part of the argument in which V. Minor contends she is a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. The bolded part is the citizen clause from said amendment. Waite and the other justices UNANIMOUSLY rejected this argument and did so in a couple of different places in the decision:

But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.

The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

Fast forward to Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray recognized what the court did and said they were COMMITTED to excluding NBCs from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. He then cited the NBC definition used by Waite. And he then AFFIRMED that Virginia Minor was declared to be a citizen by BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria, which specifically counters the argument made by Minor of being a citizen under the 14th amendment. Do you understand yet?? If the court was committed to the English common law argument, there was no need to discuss NBC from the Constitution nor define nor for Gray to say that Minor was declared a citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.