[DMZFrank]

“Otherwise we do propagate the concept of second class status to American women, this is not so feminist clap-trap argument, but goes to the heart of individual sovereignty. Is it equal or are men more sovereign than women?”

This may offend your post modern feminist sensibilities, but the patriarchs who wrote the constitution believed that the citizenship condition of the father was the citizenship of the children. It was not until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 that a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country could transmit US citizenship onto her child. So article II was passed with that understanding still in effect.

Last time I checked, 1922 was LONG after Art II section I , clause 5 was ratified. It has NOT been modified by an Article V amendment. (yet) The original intent of that Articl still applies.

[nomad]

So the Ninth Amendment, section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Nineteenth Amendment do not modify this bloodline argument? Well if you refer to your original Common Law bloodline interpretation here then only the right to vote has been conferred to women. No other rights can be inferred or implied. Property, inheritance, jurisprudence, any of the modern rights exorcised by women are potentially just ‘liberal’ interpretations and therefore unconstitutional, given that they could be in violation of the Common Law bloodline argument the oligarchs employed? These rights are not directly enumerated, so they don`t really exist, right?