They said one case - with parents both citizens - was never doubted, and admitted others said “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
There was still debate in 1875, but WKA in 1897? put an end to most of the debate. By the 1950s, there wasn’t a debate about those born in the USA. The implications of WKA, and the reasoning that formed its basis, had been accepted.
In 2010, it is a bit late to rewrite the books. Not totally impossible, but there is NO SIGN the SCOTUS will touch this case. NONE!
Here I'll make it easy for you. I'll underline the answer for your convenience:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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." [Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)]