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.
[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, etc. etc.. . .
; The lawyer explained his position on what the Minor judges were doing, and why. Now, lets look at your response:
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.
See, you don't explain what kind of case this is,or why the judges are doing what they are doing. The lawyer's explanation explains why the Minor judges didn't bother with kids of foreigners. What you said does not explain this BIG HOLE in the Minor case.
The lawyer goes on to explain what the court did, and why, and what the result is. With that explanation, a person can understand what this case is about, why it doesn't talk about kids of foreigners, and why it isn't quoted anywhere for its definition of citizenship. This would also explain why conservative Republican lawyers didn't go around hollering Minor Happersett!!! Minor Happersett!!! when Obama was running, and why Rush Limbaugh and FOX News aren't doing stories on Minor Happersett and Obama. You don't have to ignore all those cases in WKA that say just the opposite.
But to accept it the way you read it, you have to ignore the "doubts" that weren't resolved by the Minor judges - - - you have to wonder why nobody was hollering Minor Happersett!!! Minor Happersett!!! in 2008 - - -you have to wonder why Jerome Corsi didn't mention it in his book ObamaNation, which trust me if you have not read it, just slams the crap out of Obama. (I have a First Edition!!!)You have to try to reconcile the Minor case to all the contradictory cases listed in WKA. And, you have to wonder why this case isn't quoted to define NBC anywhere.
You see, you are just picking up stray bits of sentences here and there, and trying to make it into some kind of a theory, which is nothing wrong with that, but then the theory you put together ignores everything that is out there. WKA was like 60 pages maybe, and 99.9% of it, you have not even made an attempt to explain what it means.
I think that you are like people who start out as normal Christians, like Baptists and Catholics, and Lutherans, and then start obsessing about language in the Bible and end up believing that you have to pick up snakes like King Cobras and Black Mambas, and then don't go to a doctor or E.R. when the snake bites the crap out of you. Those people can show you right in the Bible where you are supposed to do it, and quote stuff all day long at you, but most people don't believe that is what being a Christian is all about, and just kind of avoid these people and let them die off when the snakes bite them. Sooo, this is my thoughts on your techniques of explaining stuff, and how you need to do a better job explaining this if you can. Which, given what you have to work with in the cases, you can't.