No, he -- Chief Justice Waite -- "acknowledges" a lot of doubt.
He uses the word doubt TWO times in referring to those that hold the view -- that you yourself ADMITTEDLY hold -- that one born in the united states, with a foreign national, for his/her father, is a Natural Born Citizen.
However -- as you have indicated to ALL on this forum -- the Question of Obama's citizenship is, in your OPINION, settled law.
By the way, when Justice Waite writes about the opinion YOU hold he uses the term "SOME" authorities... etc.
Do you understand the import of the word SOME in logic?
When Justice Waite writes about the opinion "Birthers" hold -- born in the country of citizen parents (PLURAL)-- he says (Paraphrase) "of this class there has never been doubt," meanining, ALL (not SOME) agree: that one born in the country, of citizen parents(Plural)are Natural Born citizens.
Your "opinion" is, indeed, the minority one!
Does that mean that your minority view is necessarily wrong?
NO!
However, it does mean that YOUR "opinion" as to what makes a Natural Born Citizen (born in country with a foreign national for father)is in a state of uncertainty, or DOUBT; whereas, the "opinion" of the birthers (born in country, both parents citizens)is certain, or -- as Chief Justice Waite said (paraphrase) -- "of this class there can be NO doubt!
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the "opinion" of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
In review of the above it would seem that the onus would be on those with the shaky position to prove their case, rather than the ones -- whom ALL authorities agree -- are on solid ground.
I'm afraid that born in the country to two citizen parents(NO DOUBT AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)trumps born in country with a foreign national for father.(DOUBTS AS TO NATURAL BORN STATUS)
We're done here...
STE=Q
Thus, Birthers are on solid ground where the "opinion" of anti-birthers are fraught with doubt!
Yes, your total post in 551 above is right on the money. If there is 'uncertainty' in the allegiance to a country because of birth - how can that person be a natural? The most obvious answer he is not.
I believe that exactly the opposite is true. Nothing in the Constitution or the law supports your two citizen parent requirement. Nothing in past Supreme Court decisions save your twisting of Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett. Comments that were made in dicta to begin with.