You Obots can't seem to make up your mind. The common law is the ONLY thing that would make your Connecticut citation make any sense since it only talks about "natural-born Subjects." This country has citizens.
You would also see that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, makes clear that citizenship issues, post Constitution, were still not clear-cut.
Right, but in the end he acknowledges both jus soli AND jus sanguinis criteria.
First, I do not support Obama in any way.
I argue with you Birthers because I truly believe you are a serious threat to Constitutional Conservatism.
Next, though I have used the term “Common Law” frequently, we all seem to, the serious debates over Common Law definitions do make a distinction between English Common Law and the Common Law of the States.
It seems, by all accounts I have read, that the Founders paid particular attention to English Common Law which is close, if not identical, to my current understanding of Citizenship issues.
Also, the point must be made that, through the extensive recorded history of the Constitutional Convention, I have not been able to find, and many others have commented that they have not been able to find, even ONE mention of Vattel or the teachings of Vattel regarding Citizenship.
Can you please cite ONE statement, by any member of the Constitutional Convention, or any members of our first Congress, that supports your odd, unusual interpretation of Citizenship?
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth.
I can find several Founders who state that point, either directly or in so many words.
Please give us the name of ONE PERSON who had legal authority, as an early President or an early member of Congress, who supports your views, would you please?