No, not exactly. Virginia Minor wasnt making a claim that she was made a citizen based on the 14th Amendment as the 14th Amendment didnt create any new citizens except to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves who were born here, and not to force other changes in state laws, i.e. grant suffrage to women nor did the 14th Amendment say anything about who was a NBC under the Constitution, it only affirmed that All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Minor was not a former slave and was a citizen under the Constitution and prior to the 14th and the SCOTUS simply agreed with her that she was a citizen, that women could be recognized as citizens, that women always had been, but found in their ruling that citizenship alone did not grant all citizens the right to vote as defined by individual states, that individual states could define who among its citizens were allowed to vote, or even as the SCOTUS noted, that non-citizen (males) could vote in some States under certain circumstances including Missouri such as having only the intent to become citizens. Of course as I and other have stated, the 19th Amendment overturned the ruling in Minor v. Happersett.
Again for you birthers and for those of you in Rio Linda, this was not a citizenship case but a voting rights case. Of course the Court had to first ascertain that Minor was a citizen but in doing so, they stated that any disagreements or doubts as to what constituted a Natural Born Citizen was not relevant to Minors claim of her denial of voting privileges under the 14th 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 Minor was a child born of citizen parents, they had all they needed to ascertain that Minor was a citizen. The definition of citizenship of others or who was a NBC was not the question before the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett as it was merely sufficient to affirm that she was a citizen.
Again, you and others repeatedly misinterpret Minor v. Happersett as a ruling that defiantly defined who is a Natural Born Citizen. The Court didnt. They deferred that question as irrelevant to this particular case as 1) Minor was a citizen even under the narrowest of definitions and so 2) whether she was a NBC or a naturalized citizen was not the question at hand in this case.
If Minor had become a legally naturalized citizen after the ratification of the Constitution, and either before or after the 14th amendment, she still would have legally been recognized as a citizen. The only impact of the 14th amendment on her citizenship status would have been if she had been a former slave and a male slave at that.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.
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.
It wouldnt have mattered if she was a born citizen by whatever definition or even a naturalized citizen as the court case wasnt about the State of Missouri denying her voting rights based on their claim that she wasnt a citizen, but rather if the State of Missouri could, by its own State Constitution and legislation, define who among its legally defined or U.S Constitionally defined citizens was eligible to vote in Missouri. Her claim was that Missouri was in violation of Section 1 - Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment by denying her the right to vote being that she was a legally defined as citizen whether she was a birth right citizen or a naturalized citizen or a citizen by subsequent statute or amendment was irrelevant not the question before the Court.
They were countering her argument, and natural-born citizen, in context, was used to exclusively characterize one class of birth citizens; those born to citizen parents. Doing this means they acknowledged at least TWO classes of citizens at birth. One were citizens with no doubt and they were exclusively characterized as natural-born. The other class had doubts, not about being natural-born citizens, but doubts about being citizens at all.
No. What the SCOTUS was saying was that there was no question that a person who was born in the U.S. of citizen parents were undoubtedly citizens and Natural Born Citizens. The doubt the court mentioned it the Dicta was whether a person, male or female born here regardless of the citizenship of their parents were Natural Born Citizens, not that they were not citizens at all. It was a Dicta as Minor was establishes as being a citizen and whether she was a NBC or not, was not relevant to the ruling.
But that shouldn't have mattered because there shouldn't be any doubts that Minor fit the court's 14th amendment definition of birth citizenship, unless the court was making a distinction. Almost all of the same members of the Minor court had ruled two years earlier about the only recognized exclusions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. There wouldn't be any doubts for them about who could be citizens at birth, unless they were making a distinction that goes beyond the subject clause. And that's exactly what they were doing. V. Minro wasn't in any of the categories where there would be any doubts, so if they thought she was a 14th amendment citizen AND if they thought persons born in the country under the 14th amendment could be natural-born citizens, they could have immediately said so, WITH the list of exclusions per the subject clause. IOW, they had the ability to resolve those doubts, unless they were affirming that the doubts are outside of the subject clause.
Again, please read the 14th Amendment and show me where it defines who is or isnt a Natural Born Citizen. You cant because it isnt there. It only states the following:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This isn't about what I have to consider dicta or not. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that the citizenship definition was part of the Minor court's holding in Wong Kim Ark and Luria.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The question before the SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark didnt define who was eligible to be POTUS or who was a NBC, it simply and rightly ruled IMO and in the opinion of many Constitutional scholars, that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth regardless of the citizenship of his parents. If Wong Kim Ark had decided to run for POTUS under a claim of being a NBC, that might have been an entirely different question or ruling before the SCOTUS as to what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen under the Constitution and as to the qualifification as to who is eligible to hold the office of POTUS, but he didnt; he simply claimed that he was a U.S. citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment, and his claim was upheld by the SCOTUS in their ruling.
Good job. You managed to contradict yourself within the span of one (extremely long) sentence. The sentence you quoted says that all persons born or naturalized, etc., ARE citizens of the United States. It doesn't say all such persons have "the rights of citizenship." The court summarized Minor's argument here:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage ....
She was claiming to be a citizen by being born or naturalized, etc., which is clearly from the 14th amendment. As a woman fitting the 14th amendment criteria, she is a citizen ... and the Minor court rejected this argument.
Of course as I and other have stated, the 19th Amendment overturned the ruling in Minor v. Happersett.
Not in defining natural-born citizenship.
As Minor was a child born of citizen parents, they had all they needed to ascertain that Minor was a citizen.
If the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural-born citizenship, they also would have had "all they needed to ascertain that Minor was a citizen." IOW, there's no reason to define NBC unless it's a competely different class of citizenship with a meaningful distinction or privelege.
The definition of citizenship of others or who was a NBC was not the question before the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett as it was merely sufficient to affirm that she was a citizen.
You're not helping yourself. If it wasn't the question, then there would be no point in bringing it up, as there would have been no point to talk about how citizens can become naturalized. There wasn't any question about her being naturalized either, but this paragraph goes into detail about it anyway:
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen.Again, you and others repeatedly misinterpret Minor v. Happersett as a ruling that defiantly defined who is a Natural Born Citizen.
Do you mean "definitely" or "defiantly." Both are probably true because the court defied Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument, but I don't see the ruling as being defiant.
What the SCOTUS was saying was that there was no question that a person who was born in the U.S. of citizen parents were undoubtedly citizens and Natural Born Citizens.
There's no reason to talk about being born to citizen parents here, unless there's a distinction between classes of birth citizenship. That one distinction is that natural-born citizens fit Art. II presidential eligibility, which makes it clear why the Luria case in 1913 cites Minor and makes no mention of Wong Kim Ark in recognizing the Supreme Court's prior precedents on presidential eligibility.
They deferred that question as irrelevant to this particular case as 1) Minor was a citizen even under the narrowest of definitions and so 2) whether she was a NBC or a naturalized citizen was not the question at hand in this case.
They didn't need to define her citizenship by the "narrowest of definitons" unless that point is to show that such a definition is exclusively characterized as NBC. The court says the direct question is whether whether "all citizens are necessarily voters," so there's no reason to narrow the definition of citizens.
The doubt the court mentioned it the Dicta was whether a person, male or female born here regardless of the citizenship of their parents were Natural Born Citizens, not that they were not citizens at all.
Sorry, but it does not say this. Read it.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, ...
This says included as CITIZENS, but with doubts. It doesn't say included as natural-born citizens. NBCs are citizens without doubt. Persons who are born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents are doubted to be citizens, so how could they be considered "natural-born"?? That would make no sense.
It was a Dicta as Minor was establishes as being a citizen and whether she was a NBC or not, was not relevant to the ruling.
It's relevant to the ruling because of the argument she was making. This is why the syllabus says:
women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since ...
IOW, women born of citizen parents don't need the 14th amendment to be citizens ... BECAUSE they fit the court's definition of natural-born citizenship.
The question before the SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark didnt define who was eligible to be POTUS or who was a NBC, it simply and rightly ruled IMO and in the opinion of many Constitutional scholars, that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
You're not reading what I wrote. I said WKA affirmed the holding in Minor. Here it is:
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,
It affirm's Minor citizenship was based on being citizen parents, which comes in WKA, right after it quotes Minor's paragraph defining natural-born citizen. It is the last time in the WKA decision that it talks about NBCs, obviously because that definition could not be applied to Wong Kim Ark, and the Court had to come up with another type of citizenship that did.blockquote