Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations.
If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC.
I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.
If Barry is eligible with his foreign national father (& his foreign citizenship at birth), then Kim Jong Il, et' al, would be able to have their son/daughter born in this country, be eligible to the POTUS and thus Commander in Chief.
I think there is zero percent chance that was the intention of the framers...and good for our national security in these modern times.
Somebody else said that about the Law of Nations--that just isn't so. The Law of Nations is an 18th Century Document (1758); the Common Law dates to the 12th Century; and concepts about subjects and citizens date back to the Roman Empire.
Further, the Common Law is the Law in the US; Law of Nations is not.
Reason Law of Nations is significant is that the principal drafters of the Constitution were aware of it and had read it and used it as a resource for their work. But the actual legal impact of the terms stands for itself--the concept of a common law subject which was lifted to the Constitution as a citizen is a pure Common Law topic (maybe the founders thought as described in Law of Nations--but the law is the Common Law).
Further, there is another body of law that is also significant and that is Roman law about citizens.
Law of Nations is just another treatise on legal topics of the day--it isn't law; it just purports to be a summary of the author's view of what the law is; real lawyers don't cite that stuff unless they can't come up with real authority to support their argument.
I doubt that Common Law would be viewed as "extending past" but the point of my hypothetical is that there are people out there in the US who have presumably Citizen Parents whose citizen parents are also citizens of another country; and who themselves are citizens of that other country who can still get second country Passports based on their citizenship.
I don't think anything like that would have happened at Common Law although you look at the successors to Edward the III after the death of the Black Prince and see that they were really all French first and wonder.
On the other hand, they clearly did deal with issues about children born outside the country; and children born as subjects to parents who were clearly agents of another sovereign when born and there is commentary in the common law about how those people were addressed.