Each and every clause of our constitution is a rejection of common law.
The term “natural born citizen” is alien to common law; they had native born subjects. At the time natural born citizen was understood to mean one that was a citizen by birth regardless of where he was born because both parents were citizens.
Not true; I suggest you do some reading on the history of the Constitution. English Common Law formed the basis of much of the Constitution. Justice Scalia, for one, disagrees with you, as do several other justices. Justice Joseph Story
And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.Chief Justice Howard Taft wrote
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."From the WKA case:
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151." [emphasis added]See also See also Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844),
The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. [emphasis added]
The term “natural born citizen” is alien to common law; they had native born subjects. At the time natural born citizen was understood to mean one that was a citizen by birth regardless of where he was born because both parents were citizens.
Nope. See Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813)
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.