The judge in Lynch v. Clarke (with an E by the way), was expressing a personal opinion, unfortunately for him, it was not based on any fact, from the very first sentence you quoted:
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
There is NO law of the United States that says this or anything like this. In fact, the good judge contradicts himself by saying that there is no written law that says who a citizen is.
And the question whether Julia Lynch was or was not a citizen, must be determined by the national unwritten law.
IOW, this guy gave himself carte blanche to invent whatever law he wanted to make up.
After all, if there was national law, the Supreme Court certainly could have quoted it in Slaughterhouse, Elk, Minor or Wong Kim Ark. The Lynch judge goes on:
Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.Notice that this was NEVER quoted by the higher court. This particular judge doesn't come across as very educated. He says:
It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States.
This quote is mainly this judge's way of playing ignorant. And he does it to great effect here when confronted directly with a Supreme Court case that clearly undermined his belief in the "national unwritten law."
The case of Inglis v. The Sailor's Snug Harbor was cited as having been decided on the principle of the public law, that the national character of an infant followed the condition of his father. I do not so understand the decision.
Do not so understand the decision?? This judge says it's because Inglis was born BEFORE the Declaration of Independence. Yet the Supreme Court CLEARLY said:
2. If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.
Sorry, but this shows that the judge in Lynch ignored clear precedent. There's a reason why very little is quoted by the Supreme Court from this decision. It was junk.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
How many judges and courts is this now that you don't like. All of them??? Because they all of them, every single one, disagree with you googy gibberish. Are you addicted to being wrong???