[rxsid]

The English common law was "Christian only, and their entire system of Government was based upon their unique view of natural law being issued directly from Jesus Christ as enforced by the English monarch." Something that would have been rejected by the framers and clearly an affront to the 1st amendment. Anyone who wasn't a Christian was not considered a natural born Subject of the King, even IF they were born IN the country.

Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.

Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.

The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/the-english-common-law-definition-of-natural-law-is-not-part-of-the-law-of-nations/

Relavent details, here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case

b.t.w. the Law of Nature, natural law, is non denominational. It's one of the reasons why the framers went with it instead of the Christian only English version.

[Chewbarkah]

Any argument that English common law has no bearing on American legal traditions is demolished by the fact that millions of legal decisions in US courts have cited common law, and yet are held as valid and binding.

But English Common Law is not applicable to THIS issue: the Founders understanding of “natural born subject” (NBS) and by extension, natural born citizenship. English “common law” musing about NBS status were made obsolete in 1730, by the British Nationality Act of 1730. Acts of Parliament trump common law. The American Revolution started in 1775. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Founders’ thoughts on NBS arguably might have been influenced by the British Nationality Acts of 1730 and 1772, but not by common law.

If sophists want to persist with appeals to British law, then Obama loses, since English citizenship law that had superceded common law for 57 years by the time of the Constitutional Convention, stated that NBS was conveyed based on the citizenship of the FATHER only. This train of thought ends with Obama Jr as a British NBS, not an American nbc.

Wholely academic issue at this point, since power and politics have displaced logic and facts.