“Some authorities go further...” links it to the previous sentence. Here is what Minor says, in context:
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
To repeat:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Notice that in that sentence too, they simply use the word citizen. They did not repeat NBC in every sentence.
Again, I cannot keep you from misreading Minor, but no court has ever upheld your wacko interpretation.
As Ankeny put it:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
But then, that is a kangaroo court because it believed:
“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in
their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and
quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent
that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of
what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs; arguments fall
under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we
need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
You seem to be having trouble comprehending that sentence. Here it is in its entirety... "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
The meaning is clear. "Some authorities go further" is actually linked to the rest of the sentence by the words that follow "and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
And is a conjunction. It links two phrases and clauses together. The and in this sentence links "Some authorities go further" to "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"
The meaning is clear: "Some authorities go further [insert implied 'than that'] and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
Wow. I can't believe I'm having to give a grammar lesson.
That's a clear misinterpretation (a deliberate can-kicking misinterpretation, I suspect) of Minor v. Happersett. The sentence I just explained to you very clearly expressed doubts as to whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is even considered a citizen at all. The 'natural born' didn't need to be included because a non-citizen certainly couldn't qualify as 'natural born' in the Constitutional sense.