No they didn't. Try reading the freakin' ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. 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
.
“They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.
No they didn’t. Try reading the freakin’ ruling. It took me all of five minutes.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. 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”
I did read it, and it takes more that 5 minutes.
Again, reread what you just posted. The court did not need to decide , “for the purposes of this case, if the woman, Minor, was a (mere) citizen. Since she had already qualified as a “natural born citizen” under Article 11, Section 1, there was no need for them to define what constitues a mere citizen. Obviously, as a “natural born citizen” she was a citizen.
The court is saying that it need not define mere citizenship to solve this particular case. This lady already met the higher standard.