The most direct counterexample is the citation by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, page 289,
“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Vattel’s Law of Nations, often referred to as “Continental Law”, was the single most cited legal reference in U.S. jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820 (Grotian Society Papers - 1972). Your reference only points out the obvious; of course The Common Law was important, that is what was being replaced. Alexander Hamilton declared Vattel’s Law of Nations part of “The U.S. Common Law.”
Your reference to the Congressional Record, which discussion concerned Mitt Romny’s natural born citizen problems, refers to Minor V. Happersett. Among the definitions of common law are settled case law. In the opinion delivered by Waite:
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.”
Waite repeats the Vattel definition. Don't be confused by the “Some authorities...” statement. He is referring only to citizens - words mean things - not natural born citizens.
He is raising the question of the validity anchor babies, though there was not that concern in 1875.
Further, if you refer to Kent, as did the Cong Record article you cited, Kent, In his Commentaries on Citizenship remarked:
It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested by any act of their own. In the case of Macdonald, who was tried for high treason,in 1746, before Lord Ch. J. Lee, and who, though born in England, had been educated in France, and spent his riper years there, his counsel spoke against the doctrine of natural allegiance as slavish, and repugnant to the principles of their revolution. The Court, however, said, it had never been doubted, that a subject born, taking a commission from a foreign prince, and committing high treason, was liable to be punished as a subject for that treason.”
Obamo II was born a British Subject. That is just part of the clear thinking that resulted in requiring that our President be a natural born citizen.
Please see the link I provided, it is from the Congress, and it is rife with legal and historical references to this very fact which you state is false.
At best, you could state it is in doubt, but to claim it is false is simply untenable.
I'm assuming you are not one of the gang of obfuscators so busy on this list.
Rather, I am interested in logic, reason and the rule of law; apparently that is unacceptable to you?
Your reference only points out the obvious; of course The Common Law was important, that is what was being replaced.
And for items that were not explicitly referenced as such, English common law still stood; that is what I stated, and that is what your statement here reinforces. Vattel was an addition - not substitution - of English common law.
Alexander Hamilton declared Vattel’s Law of Nations part of “The U.S. Common Law.”
Emphasis added. Vattel is PART of the US common law; it was used to extend English common law, not replace it. It is PART of our heritage.
In the case of natural born citizens, English common law assumes those born on US soil - as the 14th Amendment also states - are natural born citizens. They are a citizen by the act of birth (and because of the 14th amendment, that act means location of birth).
Furthermore, Vattel says there can be doubt, but that it is NOT a wrong position. We have two traditions of our Constitution - English common law, and the supplemental Vattel. English common law says a person born on US soil is a US citizen. Vattel says that may or may not be wrong. One tradition is adamant, the other is non-committal; taken together, it makes a strong case that birth location conveys natural born citizenship.
Vattel does not oppose English common law on this point (only states that it may or may not be correct), and your own reference to Hamilton calls Vattel an addition to - a part of - US common law. So which to go with?
One votes in favor; the other abstains. We have a verdict - in favor.