This is a Fogger fabrication (= "outright lie"). The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction between NBC and the 14th amendment.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
The court considered the 14th amendment of the constituton and said that the Constitution (which INCLUDES the 14th amendment) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The court said it was "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" ... those are TWO very clear statements that EXCLUDE NBCs from having anything to do with the 14th amendment.
“The court said it was “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” ...”
Edge, as I have pointed out to you before, you edit that remark to make it mean the OPPOSITE of what they actually said. That makes you a liar.
Here is the quote, including the part you delete:
“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 is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...”
Edge, you really need to stop LYING about what the court wrote...
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Virginia Minor herself had citizen parents, so answering the question of the children of aliens was not necessary to decide this case. The Court explained:
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
As the court was not ruling on her citizenship status only confirming it for purposes of determining her eligibility to vote, as they conceded that she was a citizen, what the court stated regarding citizenship was a dictum.
Dictum:
In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.
There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court's discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).
simplex dictum: an unproved or dogmatic statement.
In English law, a dictum is any statement made as part of a judgment of a court. Thus the term includes dicta merely in passing (referred to as obiter dicta) that are not a necessary part of the reason for the court's decision (referred to as the ratio decidendi). English lawyers do not, as a rule, categorise dicta more finely than into those that are obiter and those that are not.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was unquestionably born in the US to US citizen parents, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
The dictum stated in Minor v Happersett regarding citizenship is and never was a binding opinion and in fact the whole ruling was made moot with passage of the 19th Amendment.
In a nutshell what the SCOTUS said in Minor v Happersett was, yes she’s a citizen without question, and on a side note (dictum), there is some question regarding whether persons born in the United States to non-citizen parents are natives or natural-born citizens but we are not discussing or ruling on that as it has no relevance in this case. The court in Minor v Happersett never answered the question as to whether the law included as native or natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents, they only mentioned it in passing that they were among some legal authorities, questions regarding that opinion.
As they did not make a ruling as to the citizenship status of those born in the US to non-citizen parents, the dictum, the dictum did not even have any persuasive effect as to future cases as they never made a ruling on that issue – only mentioned that it might be in question.