You then disagreed and said "Your claim of items not being in dispute are erroneous and false." Well, which ones, I asked? You then gave me a post which did not address any of the items I listed. I pointed this out, and still you are not pointing out which of the items I listed you believe ARE in dispute.
It is hard to see how you would have the ability to understand a response to your other questons, when you seem to be unable and/or unwillking to undrstand the fundamental legal systems and principle supon which they are based and their historical antecedents. You are trying to cite SCOTUS justices without an apparent awareness of the limits of their authoritativeness.
OK.
Lets look at the exact quote.
I have not read the full case, so do not know the particulars. But I’m fairly good with the English language.
“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 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. “
What did he say?
First, he does make a reference to common law. Whether it is British common law or American common law, he does not state. So to say that this is an absolute reference to British common law is NOT supported by what he said.
Second.
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
OK, we can all agree with that.
Third.
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
OK, we can all agree to that.
Fourth. Here comes the monkey bar.
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Hmm. He doesn’t say which authorities. But he does here admit that there is a difference of opinion somewhere. Now he has absolutely said by the third part here that people born in the country of citizen parents WERE INDEED natural born citizens. By his statement saying “it was never doubted” he’s saying the court agrees with at least this part of the interpretation.
Fifth
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Once again he is confirming that persons born of parents who are citizens ARE natural born citizens, he is also repeating that there is a dispute about the second class, “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”
Finally...
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
OK. You were just TOLD by the source you CONTINUALLY QUOTE that the court DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
The court basically said DO NOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS about the class of people who are currently the issue, ie children (possibly) born of alien parents.
The entire point of him saying that there was “doubt” shifts the burden of proof, and the court said it was simply not going to deal with it now, and the ball is back in your (or someone elses) court.