I strongly disgree with your assessment of his words.
Never any doubt to the first.
Doubts as to the second class BUT
For his case, HE ELECTED NOT TO GET INTO THE SECOND, JUDGE IT OR RESOLVE IT.
That happens all the time.
He elected not to decide that because it was’t relevant to the case.
He said:
“
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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
It involved a woman born in the US who was denied her right to vote because she was not a male.
You are misrepresenting the case to claim it settled the law about children born in the US when one parent is foreign born.
Nope. Going to have to agree to disagree.