Article 1 Section 8 (in part)
...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,...
Those powers are enumerated to be with Congress. “Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
Since you dodged the first question, let see if you can answer the second question. The first Congress dealt with the issue of natural born citizen as per enumeration in the Constitution. In the law that they passed, was a person required to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen?
Oh, and English Common Law has no standing where the Constitution specifically defines the powers of the branches of government.
> ““Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.”
I think you have confused natural born citizen with naturalized citizen. And then there is a different definition for citizen by birth.
I never said English Common Law lays precedent to the US Constitution. The only influence I have seen where English Common Law comes into play are in definitions to resolve meaning and usage that were used by the Founders.
The phrase ‘natural born’ refers to a birth from two parents having no allegiance to any other nation or jurisdiction, meaning two citizen parents.
Whether a child was born on US Soil, I have always seen the condition that a child be born on US Soil or in its possessions. A US embassy is a US possession. A US base established outside US jurisdiction is a possession.
I appreciate your comments.
No, Congress decides who is and who is not a "naturalized" citizen. Congress cannot make "natural" that which is not already "natural."
Passing a law, or changing a law is an act of man, not of nature.
Nor where it has been intentionally omitted. Primogeniture, Lese Majeste, Corruption of Blood, and Debtor's prisons were all part of English Law.
We did not and do not follow these English Common laws, and we did not explicitly state we weren't going to follow them, (except for "corruption of blood", which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.) we just didn't include them in American law. We eliminated many of them by Category (cruel and unusual punishments, Freedom of Speech.) without direct reference to them.
The point is, the founders didn't bother to make an explicit list of English laws which were overthrown. They figured intelligent people could tell which ones were in obvious conflict with American Principles. As James Madison said:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.