No. According to the Court in Minor V. Happersett, she was a citizen without benefit of the 14th:
“Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. 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.”
Of course as I and other have stated, the 19th Amendment overturned the ruling in Minor v. Happersett.
Not in defining natural-born citizenship.
Nice try but the Court in Minor V. Happersett didn’t define natural born citizenship either.
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 *.
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.
The point the Court was making here was that women could indeed be citizens. The Court also pointed out how men could be citizens. However the distinction of how they became citizens was not relevant to this case because 1) Minor was a citizen prior to and without benefit of the 14th and 2) her court case was not about the 14th making her a citizen but rather that being a citizen, that under Section 1 - Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, the State of Missouri was denying her rights of citizenship. The Court however found that while Minor was a citizen before the 14th, and the 14th – “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.”
The Court found that the 14th women could not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” but that did not grant women suffrage and that individual State laws could decide who among its citizen were eligible to vote without violating either the Constitution or the 14th Amendment.
Again, this was not a case to prove her citizenship; it was a voting rights case.
“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.
Spell checker is a b!tch isn’t is. Try it sometime and you will avoid misspellings like competely and privelege although sometimes spell check will autocorrect in unintended and humorous ways.
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 (Fixed it for you).
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 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.
As Minor, if she had been a male citizen of Missouri – born or naturalized, would have been eligible to vote, it didn’t matter how she became a citizen. Are you saying that the Court in Minor v. Happersett was saying that “NBC’s” had different voting rights from say a naturalized citizen?
“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.
You are omitting the whole quote:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. 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.”
Note that like the Framers, the Court used “native” and “natural born” to mean the same thing.
“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.
Yes and No. The Court said they were “citizens”.
“The question before the SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark didn’t 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
No. The Court in WKA simply affirmed that Minor was a citizen but Kim Wong Ark’s case, unlike Minor’s, was a citizenship case under the 14th and not a voting rights case; in particular a citizenship with respect to The Chinese Exclusion Act that was passed 14 years after the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the government cannot deny citizenship to anyone born within the United States, including Wong Kim Ark. Furthermore, if he was a citizen, then the Chinese Exclusion Act could not apply to him. Wong Kim Ark’s parents, in particular, were not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity in the United States at any time.
Kim Wong Ark was not running for POTUS BTW. So the Court in KWA didn’t have to make a ruling as to Presidential eligibility. The Court in KWA mentions MVH as:
“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.”
And
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Order affirmed.”
As far as LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), that was a case involving certificate of naturalization was attacked as fraudulent. Their mention of MVH:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225”
Note the word “native” is used, not “natural”.
I would also like to ask you a rather simple question, that is that if a person was born in the U.S. after the adoption of the Constitution but prior to the 14th Amendment, their citizenship not otherwise having been grandfathered in by virtue of having been residents of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were not slaves or native Indians, children of foreign diplomats – did those persons who were born here whose parents were immigrants and not naturalized citizens at the time of their birth and until sometime after said children reached the age of majority - were they ever required to become “naturalized” citizens? That should be easy to prove if they were. There should be records of many such U.S. born children of non-native, non-citizen parents who immigrated to the U.S. during those years, some sort of procedural documents detailing the process, but I can’t find any.
Another example for you. My father was born in Norway, he came to the U.S. when he was around 5 years old, his mother never returned to Norway, nor did my father, his parents were legal permanent U.S. residents, held jobs here, bought a house here. My father was not yet a naturalized citizen and he parents hadn’t yet become naturalized but considered himself an “American” when he was drafted into the U.S. Army during WWII (he tried to enlist but couldn’t because of he wasn’t a citizen but was a year later drafted anyway) and served with honor and distinction – several metals for valor in battle and two Purple Hearts. He came back home to NJ, met and married my mother (a native born – “natural” born citizen) and year later my older brother was born. Between the time he came home from the war, met and married my mother and had a son, he was trying to finalize his “naturalization” but thanks to U.S. government FUBARS in his paperwork his “naturalization” was delayed. As a result my older brother who was born in the U.S. had a father who was not yet a U.S. citizen.
So, in your “esteemed legal opinion”, was my brother born a citizen? Would he have been born a citizen prior to the 14th? Prior to the 14th, would my brother have had to become “naturalized”? If so, how would he have gone about doing so? What would have been the legal procedures in place prior to the 14th for him to do so? Is my brother not a “native” or “natural born” citizen whereas, since I was born after my father’s naturalization, I am? Or do you think that my father’s birth in Norway somehow makes me have a dual allegiance to Norway; a county I know little about, have no connection to, even a language I don’t even speak; that that precludes me from being a “natural born citizen” and ineligible for the office of POTUS?
My father earned his citizenship by fighting for and nearly dying for this Country. Am I more or less of a U.S. citizen that the children of U.S. NBC fathers who fled to Canada during the Vietnam War?
You need to think about this for a minute. Why would court suggest this?? All you're doing is trying to come up with a clever way of not saying that Minor "rejected" her argument. "A citizen without benefit"??? Really???
Nice try but the Court in Minor V. Happersett didn’t define natural born citizenship either.
Sorry, but it did so very clearly. It asked who the citizens of the U.S were and how they became citizens. It introduced the term NBC from Art. II and THEN it said: "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 ..." Yes, the quote is truncated but the sections before and after do not change that this IS a definition and a direct characterization of the definition with the application of the term "natural-born citizens." It also clearly said "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. It does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. This only leaves ONE class of citizens that fits the definition.
Again, this was not a case to prove her citizenship; it was a voting rights case.
Citizenship was a central part of the case. The court listed as part of HER argument, and this was affirmed more than 20 years later in WKA when it includes the establishment of Minor's citizenship as part of the holding:
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.
Do you NOT see the highlighted part above?? And your dismissal of Minor as a citizenship case is also disprove another 15 years after Wong Kim Ark in Luria v. United States:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
That's 18 SCOTUS justices who affirmed that Minor was at least in part a citizenship case, but the Luria quotes proves it was a precedent on Art. II presidential elgibility while no citation of WKA is anywhere to be found on this issue.
As Minor, if she had been a male citizen of Missouri – born or naturalized, would have been eligible to vote, it didn’t matter how she became a citizen. Are you saying that the Court in Minor v. Happersett was saying that “NBC’s” had different voting rights from say a naturalized citizen?
No, I didn't say that at all. I said they didn't need to define her citizenship to define her voting rights, yet they did define her citizenship and they did reject the 14th amendment in conferring citizenship on her and others born in the country to citizen parents, both before and SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment.
“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.”
They didn't say this. They said there was doubt that such persons could be considered as citizens. The sentence that mentions NBCs is used EXCLUSIVELY to characterize the first class of persons for who there is NO DOUBT they are citizens.
Note that like the Framers, the Court used “native” and “natural born” to mean the same thing.
Yes, and BOTH instances are defined as "born in the country to parents who were its citizens." This doesn't help your case.
Note the word “native” is used, not “natural”.
Yet in the cases that are cited (again notice the omission of Wong Kim Ark), native is only defined in Minor as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Again, this doesn't help your case.
Yes and No. The Court said they were “citizens”.
AND the court characterized her citizenship as being due to birth to citizen parents AND it exclusively characterized that as natural-born citizenship. Think about it this way: This court was willing to define Minor's (and all women born to citizen parents) as being eligible to the office of president, but they would not recognize a right for them to vote. If the 14th was controlling AND if it defined NBC, then there should have been no need to specify a definition of citizenship based on citizen parents. The question you need to ask yourself is why they did this unless it was material distinction.
No. The Court in WKA simply affirmed that Minor was a citizen but Kim Wong Ark’s case, unlike Minor’s, was a citizenship case under the 14th and not a voting rights case; in particular a citizenship with respect to The Chinese Exclusion Act that was passed 14 years after the Fourteenth Amendment.
You've already noted the court did not give Minor what you called the "benefit" of citizenship under the 14th amendment. IOW, you admit the decision is about defining her citizenship AND you admit the 14th amendment was not operative. The reason is because she was born to citizen parents, and you're not addressing the reason why they did this. Think about it.
Kim Wong Ark was not running for POTUS BTW.
Neither was Minor, but the court still went to Art. II to reject her 14th amendment citizenship claim.
I would also like to ask you a rather simple question, that is that if a person was born in the U.S. after the adoption of the Constitution but prior to the 14th Amendment, their citizenship not otherwise having been grandfathered in by virtue of having been residents of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were not slaves or native Indians, children of foreign diplomats – did those persons who were born here whose parents were immigrants and not naturalized citizens at the time of their birth and until sometime after said children reached the age of majority - were they ever required to become “naturalized” citizens?
This is a simple question?? I had to read it a couple of times. IIUC, I don't know what the residency and immigration laws were, but they weren't consistent from state to state. That was the benefit of the 14th amendment, but obviously it still left questions open, hence cases like Slaughterhouse, Elk, Minor, Wong Kim Ark ... etc.
So, in your “esteemed legal opinion”, was my brother born a citizen?
The SCOTUS cases say what they say. If your brother fit the 14th amendment, great. If someone needs the 14th amendment to be a citizen, that is fine, but as the court said, the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. I'm not going to further analyze you and your family's citizenship status because you're trying to use it as an emotional wedge to an argument that isn't in your favor.