Absolutely. That could be the only reason they rejected her claim, but the court went further and said that women, not just Virginia Minor, did NOT need the amendment to be citizens.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
A few paragraphs later, the court says of women:
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.
That's kind of a curious thing to say, no?? The 14th amendment didn't affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. The premise would be those persons who would naturally be recognized as citizens are always going to be recognized as citizens with no affect from the 14th amendment.In case there's any doubt, it was expressed this way in the syllabus of the decision:
2. In that sense, women, of 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 to the Constitution as since.
Notice that women who are born in the country of citizen parents are considered citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. These are persons who fit the definition of natural born citizen, and if that definition is as considerable since the adoption of the 14th amendment, then it means the amendment did NOT affect their citizenship. IOW, it means NBCs are excluded from the citizen clause, which is exactly what Justice Gray said in the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Why would the court say this if we have a so-called "fundamental rule" based on English common law of birth within the dominions or within the allegiance of the United States?? The answer is because the court considers this to be a different kind or different class of citizenship. It comes with doubts because you have to determine whether persons who are NOT born to citizen parents satisfy the subject clause. Such doubts don't have to be solved for those born to citizen parents. They are natural born citizens. Anyone NOT being born in the country to citizen parents would therefore NOT be an NBC. IF there's any doubts about the parents, then they get deported or have their extensions denied.
You said the judges said: “In that sense, women, of 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 to the Constitution as since.”
True. (ALTHOUGH, if we use your logic, they didn’t specifically say they were NBCs.) But that still doesn’t mean that children born in America of foreigners are NOT NBCs because the court didn’t need to address that issue. Here is what they said:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” [again they don’t specifically call them NBCs]
Sooo, what that means is:
a)Children born here of two citizen parents are NBC.
b)Children born here of one citizen and one alien are NBC.
c)Children born here of two aliens are NBC.
Which all came from Wong Kim Ark 24 years and there is nothing in this Minor one which contradicts that. Minor says A, and Minor leaves open B and C, which Wong Kim Ark settled.
This is NOT hard to understand.