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."
No problem. It only shows you're wrong in both instances.
More CONCLUSIONS by you.
Based on what is written in the decision. Does it or does it not say that the 14th amendment was not needed to give women the position of citizenship??
The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.”
It defines it. Period. The very same definition was quoted in Wong Kim Ark and observed that V. Minor was a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis. Both factors constitute NBC.
Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.”
... which is nonsense since half the decision explains the differences.
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.
If this is what this person believes, cite the languages that says this.
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
I have to stop this nonsense here and now. Until you can provide the actual citations that support any of this, it's bunch of garbage. Where in Minor was there an extensive analysis of historical authorities??? Squeegy, this is why you don't rely on OTHER people to do your thinking for you. You already noted that they didn't cite any other cases. What "historical authorities" were cited??? This alleged person you reference is an idiot and hasn't even read the decision.