I've asked this question in regards to Minor several times. Maybe you can answer. What point does it serve for the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the citizenship of the parents if not for how it relates to the definition of NBC?? It's a narrower definition of citizenship than is required for determining voting rights, which they admit here:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
Why does the court emphasize citizenship by way of being born to citizen parents?? And why is that affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark definition when it gives the holding in Minor?? Nowhere in Minor does it specifically say that Virignia Minor was born to citizen parents, but it is definitely understood by Gray:
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, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Why emphasize this??? The direct question is if ALL citizens are voters, so why go to all the trouble of narrowing the criteria in regards to Virginia Minor if not for defining NBC??
We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, ...
Really. Where exactly do you think this was sorted out at???
For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.
This is nonsense. For the longest time, most Obama skeptics were only citing Vattel's definition of natural citizenship, not Minor. In Ankney v. Daniels, the court said the plaintiffs did not cite to authority (meaning the Supreme Court), so some of us got wise and understood we needed to specifically reference the Court using a definition of natural-born citizen that matches Vattel's. The best instance is in Minor, but it is not the ONLY one. Wong Kim Ark also cited the Minor definition and affirmed it, and went further and emphasized that a) the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens and b) that the court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Whether anyone has to alter or eradicate Minor is an irrelevant sideshow. Minor provides an inconvenient, yet authoritative and conclusive definition of NBC. It is given specifically to satisfy the clause in Article II. The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever. It's demonstrably wrong.
My answer is in the next paragraph, with the following condition. If you happen to agree you do not need to say a thing. If you should disagree with the answer, just write it off as sadly mistaken, I can live with that. You are certainly free to discuss it with others, just do not respond to me.
Thank you. The wording of your question demonstrates that parental citizenship may only "relate to" and not entirely define NBC. Minor's citizenship was stipulated, and the court referred to NBC solely as a means of determining whether even the highest form of citizenship should, via the intent of the 14th A, trump a state law that prohibited its female citizens from voting. It concluded, under the very best circumstances for a U.S. female, that despite the 14th A, a state could indeed deny its females the vote.
It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court. That is why the holding of the case does not mention NBC. That is also why it has been cited in cases limited to 14th A disputes for its manner of testing the 14th A, but has never been cited in a case as providing for a defintition of NBC because the later cases were not concerned with NBC.
Think of it this way, if the court had mentioned "bread" and noted such was available in loafs and was sometimes wrapped, that would not have conclusively defined bread.
The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever.
Many readers of this thread will note Edge's mischaracterization the way the "no doubt" language was resolved on this thread, and recognize the intellectual dishonesty in his post.