Nonsense. The "common law" in this case is a verbatim match of law of nations:
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 [p680] 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 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.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
This is from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. This is an exclusive, self-limiting definition of NBC, and the holding is affirmed as being based in part on citizen parents. Why did the court do this if not for how NBC is defined??
Read the citation you gave me.
Then read everything I have posted on this thread.
Have I ever “doubted” that a person born in this country, of citizen parents, was a Natural Born Citizen?
No, I have not.
I only present to you that your citation, due to the rules of the English Language, are not exclusive.
I am telling you that your “Case Law” which is now moot, anyway, does not LIMIT NBC to such cases at all, does it?
Your citation clearly allows for other forms of Natural Born Citizenship.
And now we as a society continue the nonsense?