So far you haven’t said anything particularly convincing—I remain of the understanding that the natural born subject law which dates back to the 12th Century was the historical origin of the concept.
If you have citations to particular legal authorities that lead to some different answer I will look at them; at the point where I have time to do so, I might even look at the issue myself.
But all I see from what you have said is some stuff that doesn’t fit as authority—maybe you have a point. But if so, it isn’t apparent from anything you have said yet.
It might help you if you read the debates of the Constitutional Convention.
But, if your anti-American bias is as inherent as it seems; it might not help.
Just wanted to say I greatly enjoy reading your comments; have been absent from FR for a couple of hiatuses (hiati?) and got back just in time for this document adrenalin.
Even though I am uneducated and have a hard time with legal stuff but your comments are very understandable and I look forward to reading more.
Consider, perhaps, that ‘a subject’ can be a slave without being ‘a citizen’.
"Natural Born citizen" isn't even a subject addressed in common law. Common law addressed the birth of a 'subject' to alien parents, but that would not be relevent, since a subject could not become a monarch.
Here is a discussion of the use in the constitution, and the origin of the term.