Since it was my argument that GPH allegedly debunked, please let me debunk the bebunking.
Here is what GPH had to say, leaving out the gratuitous insults and oprobrium:
As for the 14th amendment, women were already citizens of the United States. The 14th amendment didn't even give them the right to vote. It only provides for equal "protection" under the law. If it is as Valentine says, then there should never have been a need for the 19th amendment. If protection means "treated the same way as men," this should have been the case. If women did not even receive the right to vote from the 14th amendment, then it's impossible to claim that it changed the definition of natural born citizen.
Here's the story of the 14th Amendment:
Women have been considered citizens of the United States since the founding, but women were generally not extended the vote. Voting eligibility rules were determined by the individual states, and for the most part still are.
The 14th Amendment provides, among other things, this: "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 the due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now, back in 1872, a Mrs. Virginia Minor, a citizen of the State of Missouri became aware of the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment and noticed that it appeared to create a conflict in her State, whose State Constitution contained this provision: 'Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.'
Like most readers of this very post, she thought to herself, "If No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deny them the equal protection of the laws, then the State of Missouri can no longer refuse to allow women the right to vote while at the same time extending it to men," and filed suit against a Mr. Happersett, the local registrar of voters.
Silly Mrs. Minor.
You see, after this case worked its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, Mrs. Minor learned that despite the plain language of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution of Missouri, there was no conflict between them.
You see, the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett that voting is not a right that accrues to a person by virtue of citizenship that cannot be abridged by a local government.
The ruling contains many long and ardent discussions of the fact that women are citizens of the United States and have all the same rights as men.
But, it concludes that the right to vote is not one of them.
In reaching this decision it is worth noting that the Court found that suffrage is not co-extensive with citizenship:
Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.
And so:
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
So, voting is not a right inherent in citizenship, or so the Court decided, leading eventually to the adoption of the 19th Amendment. But in so deciding, the Court did not disparage any other right that might accrue according to one's citizenship. The decision in Minor v. Happersett was only concerned with sufferage.
Whether Minor v. Happersett was rightly or wrongly decided is a discussion of possible interest, but it is not relevant to whether or not women naturally bequeath their condition to their children, and whether that natural condition must be respected by the law.
The Court did say the following:
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular case under consideration, she had availed herself of the right.
To summarize, Minor v. Happersett concerned itself with sufferage only. The Court did not decide on any other right or privilege of Citizenship but it did in its reasoning imply that the rights of women that accrue by virtue of citizenship are essentially congruous with the rights of men.
I argue that would include the right of women to bequeath their citizenship upon their children in the same manner and to the same extent as men.
Good summary of the issues in Minor. I’ve tried to summarize it before to explain why the famous “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” section was not the court’s attempt to define the term, just to say “we know Minor’s a citizen—there’s no doubt about that.” What I never realized before is that it probably means they’d have to have let her run for president but still prevent her from voting for herself.
Mister Valentine, thank you for reopening the debate.
I will read this carefully and take time to respond.
FRegards ....
You took some wind out of my sails, Mister Valentine. And will consider your post [above] the ‘last word’ on this matter [in a legal sense] if it is not effectively countered.
And I thank you. I would rather believe in Cruz as a constitutional scholar.
Been goading people for some time now. And finally, someone managed to do it.
Regarding Natural Born Eligibility and the 14th Amendment ...
Minor v. Happersett ...
“The ruling contains many long and ardent discussions of the fact that women are citizens of the United States and have all the same rights as men. But, it concludes that the right to vote is not one of them.”
[Well done!]
“So, voting is not a right inherent in citizenship ...”
‘Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account.’
[That would appear to back your argument, ‘not one can be found, we think ...’ But a court opinion with the addition, ‘we think’, does not sound very solid to me.]
‘The Court did not decide on any other right or privilege of Citizenship but it did in its reasoning imply that the rights of women that accrue by virtue of citizenship are essentially congruous with the rights of men. I argue that would include the right of women to bequeath their citizenship upon their children in the same manner and to the same extent as men.’
I agree that is a strong argument, probably strong enough to win in court. But not bullet-proof when scholars refer to original intent.
A woman’s rights are not violated if her son is not ‘natural born’. If you think that argument is gimmicky and unfair, I agree. But we must not expect the other side to be fair.
We would be much better off with solid, clearly eligible candidates. And I would support a constitutional amendment to make a brilliant patriot such as Cruz eligible beyond the shadow of a doubt. Then people could better unite behind him.
I still am concerned that Senate Majority-Traitor McConman has a large enough fig leaf to let him keep his foot over Cruz’ neck on this issue without shame [and a dagger in the Tea Party’s back].
What's bizarre about this is that Valentine names me directly, fancies that he is "debunking" me, but then doesn't bother to ping me at all. Next, looking at the "debunking," no debunking actually happened. In fact, there is no ARGUMENT at all!:
To summarize, Minor v. Happersett concerned itself with sufferage only. The Court did not decide on any other right or privilege of Citizenship but it did in its reasoning imply that the rights of women that accrue by virtue of citizenship are essentially congruous with the rights of men.
In other words, Valentine is giving us a long lecture on a court case which he argues doesn't even address the question at hand directly. He then argues that the court case found that the rights of citizenship for women are "essentially congruous with the rights of men." But then he doesn't bother to complete the thought. He simply asserts: "I argue that women can bequeath citizenship in the same manner and extent of men!"
So where's the argument!? The next step of the argument should be "passing natural born status to children is a universal right associated with citizenship," and then you give this magical thing we call "reasons." Right now Valentine's argument is just A --> B --> ??? ---> D.
Whatever the case, the entire exercise is irrelevant because the argument of the court is that women were always considered citizens, even in previous court cases which argued over whether women could inherit property, and that the 14th amendment did not add any privileges, it merely provided additional guarantee of protection for such rights they already had. From the court Syllabus:
"The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had."
Maybe that's why Valentine didn't bother to ping me. He knows I have this weird, magical power that I like to call "Looking the Court Case up."
Dag-nabbit, I want this matter resolved!
Quoting you here because John Valentine mentioned that same trial:
[quote]
Minor v. Happersett states there is no doubt that an individual born under US jurisdiction to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. But, it also says that some authorities go further and extend that status to those born under other circumstances, about which there are doubts. It goes further to state that such doubts can be resolved. Being born out of the jurisdiction of the US leaves open the possibility of birthright citizenship from another nation that determines citizenship in that manner. Being born to a noncitizen parent leaves open the possibility of citizenship by descent from another nation that determines citizenship in that manner. Every individual circumstance is different, with different legal ramifications, for those who were not born to citizen parents within US jurisdiction. It’s clear to me at least that the concern was legal jurisdiction over a President, and only US jurisdiction was acceptable.
[— RegulatorCountry]