“I can sort of see how he’s reading that sentence. You think where it says ‘neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that...’ means that ‘it was their understanding that the court was not committed to that view.’ I think edge919 takes it to mean, ‘the court was committed to that view, but all those justices failed to understand that fact.’ I think you have to really really want it to mean that to interpret it that way, but you can sort of see it if you squint.”
You’re still missing his mis-identification of the group at issue. The group is, “all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States”. Edge919 seems to have have mis-parsed it as two groups: “all children born in the United States of citizens”, along with, “subjects of foreign States”.
He’s piled error upon error and the result is just hash.
The over-parsing is a familiar error, though. If I remember correctly, he's among those who argue that in the passage
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.the word "citizens" in the last sentence refers to a different group than "citizens also" does in the first sentence. It strikes me as the same kind of error: slicing apart ideas that clearly belong together.