The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
IOW, they didn't need to define citizenship at all for the "direct question." The direct question would apply to all citizens whether natural-born, naturalized or through statutory/judicial authority. The fact that they DID define natural-born citizenship is because Minor presented an argument based on being a 14th amendment citizen as was expressed for women as a class. If women were going to have a right to vote, it wasn't an inherent part of citizenship that SUDDENLY materialized by virtue of the 14th amendment.
Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen.
The syllabus isn't legally binding nor does it serve as precedent. What YOU can't explain away is that it clearly cites citizen parents as a criteria in direct exception to the 14th amdendment, which simply coincides with the decision where NBC is used.
How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.
What judges?? I read the case and presented the direct quotes. You can read it yourself. The things I quoted ARE there.
How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision??? Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.
1. "A syllabus of an opinion, or a summary under Rules 6(C) and 10(C) of these rules by a court other than the Supreme Court, is not the controlling statement of the points of law decided, but is merely a research and indexing aid."
2. The things about the 14th amendment not applying to persons born in the country of citizen parents IS there. It says they have been considered citizen as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. IOW, nothing changed in regards to the status of NBCs SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment. This means NBCs are excluded. It explains why Gray said they were excluded many years later. The text in the decision makes the specific point by saying the 14th amendment was not needed for the citizenship of such women. The syllabus doesn't mention children of foreigners because THIS decision didn't include them as NBCs. It does say the citizenship of people born in the country without reference to citizenship is doubted. That doubt is addressed in Elk v. Wilkins and in WKA, the latter of which resolved doubts by applying the permanent residence and domicil criteria to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. If children of foreigners were INSTEAD born to citizens, they would fit the NBC definition in Minor and the syllabus would be pertinent to those persons. Hope this helps. I've answered your questions and solved your misconceptions.
More CONCLUSIONS by you. Here is what the lawyer, who I don't know, (this is NOT my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, who can't stand all this stuff.) says is why they did it they way they did, which makes sense, and is what I already said basically:
[To The Vattle Birther] The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.” Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.” Rather, this is a (state) voting rights case to determine only whether MO law can rightly prohibit women from voting, brought under the “rights and privileges” clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, is suffrage a “right” or “privilege” that now must be protected for female citizens otherwise prohibited under state law from voting on account of their gender? But as a threshold matter, the court must first determine whether the word “citizen” as this is used in the 14th Amendment; means women, too.
Thus, the court conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies generically. It acknowledges, these authorities have always been consistent in saying, the child born in this jurisdiction, of citizen parents is a natural born native citizen; but inconsistent on whether the same can be said of children born here of non-citizen parents. Both of Ms. Minor’s parents were citizens at the time of her birth. The court wrote, therefore, there was no need to “reach” the question as to whether she would still be a native natural born citizen if her parents were not citizens.
Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies to women. And, it concludes, women were always historically considered citizens (who satisfied the uniformly accepted threshold requirement of birth in this jurisdiction to citizen parents). Thus, the word “citizen” in the 14th Amendment as this relates to the “privileges and immunities” clause, means, women, too. (The court makes clear that, as she is a natural born native citizen, her citizenship, and impliedly the citizenship of all women and men similarly situated, (though not necessarily the citizenship of people born here to non-citizen parents, or who achieved citizenship through naturalization because, as the court had already pointed out, the authorities had heretofore been mixed as to whether these were citizens and, it would not resolve that issue here) was not newly conferred by the 14th Amendment but only newly codified as entitling them as citizens to the same “privileges and immunities” as all citizens of the several states. That is, the 14th Amendment does not create a new definition of citizen.
Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; and that, citizen means, women; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to whether suffrage can be said to be a “right” or “privilege” under the 14th Amendment. And that’s where Ms. Minor’s case fails. Because voting in the several states had always been largely exclusive to men. Even when it was not exclusive to citizens.
Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas. Id.
In other words, Ms. Minor was entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of all citizens; and voting wasn’t one of those privileges and immunities.
Which this GOOD RATIONAL way of looking at this shows why come Minor has NOT been quoted for resolving the NBC issue except by Vattle Birthers, why the 14th Amendment DID NOT create a new class of citizenship, and why there is no mention of Vattel or natural law in any of this. Plus, this confirms what even the dissent in WKA (which I just read!)says that Minor did not resolve the issue, or even say that Minor says any of the things YOU theorize they did.
Sooo, you can keep on repeating your stuff, but you can't say enough words to change "not resolving doubts" into "resolved the doubts" and you can keep on pretending that Minor is something more than a Missouri woman's voting rights case, but it won't work. I bet some Vattle Birthers sue again over this, and some more courts are going to say the same thing, "Uh, sorry but the Minor case does not define natural born citizenship."
Plus, I am working on a new exciting Internet Article about the Minor case, Missouri, and a talking mule that says "show me."