No, he — Chief Justice Waite — “acknowledges” a lot of doubt.
He uses the word doubt TWO times in referring to those that hold the view — that you yourself ADMITTEDLY hold — that one born in the united states, with a foreign national, for his/her father, is a Natural Born Citizen.
However — as you have indicated to ALL on this forum — the Question of Obama’s citizenship is, in your OPINION, settled law.
By the way, when Justice Waite writes about the opinion YOU hold he uses the term “SOME” authorities... etc.
Do you understand the import of the word SOME in logic?
When Justice Waite writes about the opinion “Birthers” hold — born in the country of citizen parents (PLURAL)— he says (Paraphrase) “of this class there has never been doubt,” meanining, ALL (not SOME) agree: that one born in the country, of citizen parents(Plural)are Natural Born citizens.
Your “opinion” is, indeed, the minority one!
Does that mean that your minority view is necessarily wrong?
NO!
However, it does mean that YOUR “opinion” as to what makes a Natural Born Citizen (born in country with a foreign national for father)is in a state of uncertainty, or DOUBT; whereas, the “opinion” of the birthers (born in country, both parents citizens)is certain, or — as Chief Justice Waite said (paraphrase) — “of this class there can be NO doubt!
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the “opinion” of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
In review of the above it would seem that the onus would be on those with the shaky position to prove their case, rather than the ones — whom ALL authorities agree — are on solid ground.
I’m afraid that born in the country to two citizen parents(NO DOUBT AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)trumps born in country with a foreign national for father.(DOUBTS AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)
We’re done here...
STE=Q
“(1) Being an unspecified number or quantity; (2) Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group; (3) Being a considerable number or quantity; (4)Being part and perhaps all of a class; (5) An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”
So, let's start simple. Some people voted for Obama, just like some people voted for Bush in 2004. Neither were a minority. Now for the advanced stuff. Let's suppose that 100% of the population believes that being born here with two citizen parents makes one a NBC. Let's suppose that 80% also believe simply being born here is good enough. That's some. But the relevant minority/minority numerical comparison is not 100% to 80% (which adds up to more than 100%). It's 80% to 20%, which is by no means a minority.
Math and linguistics aside, you seriously aim to restore sanity to the entire country based on a 135 year-old case that didn't in any way determine who is a NBC, but rather upheld limiting the suffrage to male voters only? I doubt very many women will rally behind that as the definitive standard bearer of anything (which it certainly isn't for NBC determination).
Finally, all else aside, you have a decision from as long ago as 2009 that is directly relevant. The Indiana Court Of Appeals blew one of these stupid suits out of the water with the following:
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution...
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Again, no credible legal authority doubts this conclusion. It is pretty self-evident. I imagine Judge Waite would probably even agree these days if we could reanimate him after one-hundred-and-twenty years in the grave. But by all means, cling to that “some” he used in an idle dissertation as the be all and end all of the universe.