I'm trying to prevent confusion. What you posted would have allowed for others to argue that some authorities define natural-born citizen differently and that the court left it open that the other definitions can be used. This just isn't the case. The argument the court made would not stand if NBC could mean ANYTHING other than what it used: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
I am here to assist, not to cloud.
Then consider my post a friendly observation that you didn't succeed in not clouding the issue.
For example, the Supreme Court decision clearly stated there were "outside" influences on the definition of Natural Born Citizenship.
I understand what you're trying to do, but you're giving too much credit and overstating the court's position. When they talk about "some authorities" they can't preclude the involvement of the Supreme Court, because most of the states had their own citizenship laws and the Supreme Court may have respected or upheld one of those laws, such as in Shanks v. Dupont or Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor. The Minor decision is very deliberate in only characterizing one class of citizens as natural-born citizens, at the exclusion of any other class, whether there are doubts or not.
The Court excluded the other types of citizens from its definition because it was not necessary to resolve doubts about their inclusion in order to determine Virginia Minor's citizenship. The Court deliberately left unresolved the question of whether or not other citizens could be considered natural-born.