Replies

The real bottom line:

Any court, and all 50 states, will say Rubio is eligible, per the Constitution. No birther will ever agree.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

That is a lie and a fraud.

The laws of the United States were derived from English law, Continental Eropean law, and common law originating in the colonies and states before and after the colonial independence of the United States of America. The oft repeated fallacy and myth of U.S. law arising only from or even maily from English common law is a fraud and a lie. English common law had not yet been codified at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted and adopted. Few American jurists had any access to any written English common law and precedents, so they independently created their own American common law parallel with the independent developments of common-law in England.

Simply put, it was quite impossible for 18th Century U.S. law to be founded upon English common-law, because it did not yet exist when the U.S. and ealeir Colonial American laws were created independently of the English common-law.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
And when you read what was written before your snippet, that being what is in II, you have this... This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

It would be rather hard to follow that rule when English law had been overthrown here in America, wouldn't it.

And "the rule" continued to prevail continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established because there were still British citizens here in the US.
The rule didn't apply to American nationality, only to British nationality as the text indicates...on the subject of British nationality...not on the subject of American nationality.

If the societal decisions of courts today are any indication of what might might be as to eligibility for POTUSA you are probably correct. However I doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution based/embedded in laws of England. I can’t accept that the law/rule you cite as to English law was anything more of a point of discussion and not nearly as deliberated as to inserting a meaningful term for eligibility for POTUSA. The Founders were well aware of loyalties to family roots. They took particular care to avoid non-loyal heritage for POTUSA.