It was also prescient. He knew exactly what the practical effect of the majority opinion would have - that everyone would be eligible for citizenship if they weren't born to foreign armies or foreign diplomats. In criticizing the majority opinion, he says this...
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Fuller sees clearly the problems with the Ark opinion moving forward.
I was more impressed with his analogy to "birthright citizenship" as equivalent to British press gangs, in that it is a way that the State places a claim of obligation on the part of a person born here but otherwise having no natural loyalty. For example, a child born during an an overflight of American airspace could theoretically be taxed or drafted.
It was a very deep analysis, its like seldom seen in American jurisprudence.