Gray quoted Justice Marshall in this instance to explain why the exceptions in the Slaughterhouse Cases were not to be presumed to be the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment.
Minor v. Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment meant women could vote.
You say you can read, so why do you ignore that Waite specifically says:
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.
Waite framed the argument very specifically as hinging on a 14th amendment citizenship claim. Waite accepted this as a significant part of the argument and accordingly dealt with why Minor was not a citizen via the 14th amendment. Why do you think he would talk about this at all if it was not partially about her citizenship??
It was not about who was a citizen by birth. Justice Gray, after citing numerous cases,(many of which speak of birth within the country to alien parents as "natural born") comes to his point: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers...
You're making my point for me. Gray is talking specifically about the fourteenth amendment — the same amendment that he said EXCLUDED the children of citizens and the same amendment he noted does not say who natural-born citizens are. When he gave a full quote from the Minor decision, it was for the definition of natural-born citizenship. Do you disagree that he did this???
Got that? The Fourtheenth Amendment conferred no authority to restrict the effect of birth, or change the Constitutional mention of two categories: born and naturalized.
It doesn't say anything about changing the Constitutional mention of two categories. You've made that up. All it says ia that the 14th amendment still reserves naturalization authority for Congress and that Congress can't restrict the effect of birth via the 14th amendment. Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. The court already said NBC is defined outside the law. IOW, by this declaration, the court says Congress can't change that. This court said that the 14th amendment affirmed a second type of birth citizenship. So accordingly, Congress can't change that. No one is asking them to. This still respects the distinctions Gray made. NBC = defined outside the Constitution ... not by Congress. CBB = defined BY the Constitution via the 14th amendment ... not by Congress.
You underlined the wrong part -
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.The case was about whether Virgina Minor could vote, or the state could restrict voting to male citizens.
Gray quoted Justice Marshall in this instance to explain why the exceptions in the Slaughterhouse Cases were not to be presumed to be the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment.
Better go back and read it again - Gray quoted Marshall in reference to Miller's statement
"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."Gray then proceeds to call this statement
" wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for ..."Then comes your claim based on a butchered quote, where the real quote says the opposite - the Justices did not understand the court to be committed to the view that either children born in the US of citizens or of foreign subjects were excluded from the 14th amendment.
When he gave a full quote from the Minor decision, it was for the definition of natural-born citizenship. Do you disagree that he did this???
Sure do, and the WKA decision, as well as Rogers v Bellei disagree with you as well. Justice Gray quoted several cases and authorities, many of which directly or indirectly specified children of foreigners born in the US as natural born citizens. Some examples