“The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.”
In the absence of any contrary reasonable interpretation, it would.
Natural born citizen/subject HAD a well known meaning at the time the US Constitution was written and ratified. That well known and accepted meaning, found in English common law, IS the meaning, unless someone can provide evidence that it was not.
Well, I can't argue with that because I really have no idea how definite or unambiguous that term was at the time our Constitution was written. But, assuming all of the Founding Fathers had an absolutely clear and uniform opinion as to the meaning of the term "natural born citizen," then I would agree that they probably intended it to have the same meaning in the Constitution. That's a huge assumption, however, and it should be remembered that that "clear and uniform" opinion as to the term is just a means of determining their intent. The truth is that many (probably most) of the framers never gave much thought to the precise meaning of a term like "natural born citizen." They had much bigger fish to fry, like what to do about slavery, and how to institutionally protect smaller states from larger states.