No one changed the case from voting rights, but only correctly pointed out that citizenship is a part of the question and decision. The 1898 case agrees with me:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....
Which is from the part in WKA about the 14th Amendment, which YOU say does NOT apply to kids born in the U.S. of two citizen parents. Sooo, you ignore the first part of that paragraph:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .
Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim, sooo YOU ignore that part of the quote. Then, to try to make Minor a "citizenship" case, you quote the same section you deny, when it is just about how WKA tied the 14th Amendment into natural born citizenship law. Then while you quote WKA quoting Minor on that part, you ignore them when they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he [the Minor Happersett Judge]proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167
This is because if the Minor judges used common law, then you are going to lose again because of stuff like what the Lynch Judge said.
So, no. Like I said before, you are just picking and choosing sentences out of context, and pulling every SOPHISTRY trick you can so that people won't look at the actual law. Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it. Which it didn't have to overrule, because Minor didn't really didn't say anything except that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Virginia Minor being able to vote, (and Minor NEVER said that the 14th Amendment did not apply to people born here of citizen parents--that is just your sophistry at work)you had to go to common law to figure out what the term meant, which WKA did, and said:
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. . .
Which is why YOU and other Vattle Birthers keep trying to make the Minor case say a lot of stuff it doesn't say. As I said in a very good Internet Article I wrote:
Now, to most people, it reads like the Minor Judges did not make any ruling on whether or not children of foreigners were natural born citizens if born here. And, to the rest of The Free World, when a court says in a particular case that “it is not necessary to solve these doubts” , well, uh. . . it means they are not going to solve the doubts. BUT, the Vattle Birthers have a little reading comprehension problem caused by the fact that later court cases, like Wong Kim Ark , in 1898, do go on to resolve these doubts, and NOT in a way the Vattle Birthers like. Sooo, Minor vs. Happersett 1874 is like a retreat to the womb for the Vattle Birthers. It is a place to be warm, and safe, and not have to deal with that troublesome Big Kid known as REALITY. They can lay there, all comfy cozy in a fetal position, thumbs in their mouths, and pretend away those bolded words above.
What is even more ironic, is that 24 years later, the Wong Kim Ark judges did quote the Minor case, but not for any supposed definition of natural born citizens. They quoted it to show that the Court had to resort to common law to determine what natural born citizen meant, and that there were only two kinds of citizen, people born citizens and people naturalized as citizens.
Sooo, I guess you are good for something, after all. You are a good, and even GREAT example of how NOT to read cases and interpret them. Tee Hee!!!
This citation is from the part of WJA that said the 14th amendment EXCLUDED children born in the United States of citizens. I didn't ignore the first part of ANY paragraph. What I quoted IS the first part of the paragraph.
Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim ...
That doesn't go on to say they were NOT excluded. The exclusion is what the Minor decision meant when it said:
But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.When it says "this amendment" it's talking about the 14th amendment. "That position" means citizenship. By defining NBC, it's saying that persons born of citizen parents do not need the 14th amendment ... HENCE they are EXCLUDED. There's no way around this, squeezy. Pick up the pieces of your exploded head and admit you're wrong.
Sorry, this point fails, squeeegy. A) You have to show that Minor quoted Lynch, except that you've already admitted that Minor did NOT quote any cases. B) You still have not shown that Minor's definition of NBC — born to citizens in the country — is a product of common law. Meanwhile I have shown that it is NOT a product of common law.
Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it.
Minor was not overruled. The issue of voting rights was superceded, but the case has not been overruled. The 1898 case used the same definition of NBC that the 1874 case used. Nothing in the 1989 case said the 1874 definition was wrong. You cite WKA on the 14th amendment after it has already said NBCs were excluded. What you cited doesn't change that. You may continue your meltdown now.