[RegulatorCountry]

And again, the fact remains that both jus soli and jus sanguinis are recognized as qualifiers for citizenship under varying circumstances, so to attempt to claim that one reigns supreme over the other in any attempt to define the Constitutional term of art is clearly in error.

There are US legal precedents that occurred prior to Ratification under the Articles of Confederation that rather precisely underscore the points I've attempted to convey to you. However, to go to the effort to provide them to you, it is becoming increasingly evident, will be a waste of time and effort, since you are utterly incapable of recognizing that the defining qualities of a natural born citizen, as written by Chief Justice Morrison Remick "Mott" Waite, do not correspond at all to the English common law defining qualities of a natural born subject, as understood in the modern era primarily via William Blackstone's Commentaries.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

However, to go to the effort to provide them to you, it is becoming increasingly evident, will be a waste of time and effort, since you are utterly incapable of recognizing that the defining qualities of a natural born citizen, as written by Chief Justice Morrison Remick "Mott" Waite, do not correspond at all to the English common law defining qualities of a natural born subject, as understood in the modern era primarily via William Blackstone's Commentaries.

Holding out on us, eh? Hey, if "there are US legal precedents that occurred prior to Ratification...that...underscore [your points]" (i.e. cases), find them. That's what you need to show that Chief Justice Waite was referring to "something other than English" common law. Paraphrasing your points won't do it.

I repeat Justice Scalia's comments in oral argument: "[T]he meaning of natural born within the Constitution...requires jus soli." Unless Justice Scalia is now an Obamanut, the issue ought to be resolved.