I think this extremely significant. The Obots seem to think that common law was the prevailing law for defining citizenship, but it did NOT allow anyone to quit being a subject of the crown, IIRC. Why would the founders subscribe to the notion that they COULD quit their citizenship to Britain and become U.S. citizens by self-declaration?? Because they didn't follow common law; they followed natural law as expressed through Vattel's writings. This citation illustrates their rejection of common law, at least on this matter, very clearly. Great find.
Had the framers adhered to the English version of common law, there never would have been a Declaration of Independence since English common law didn't allow one to quit their allegiance to the crown. This is clear proof that (at least) in 1776, the colonist's began to break free from English common law and began to create our common law.
In fact, some Brits still believe the Declaration was illegal:
Declaration of Independence was illegal, claim British lawyers
And on FR: Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
To reiterate, the Declaration of Independence and the birth our our country was illegal under British common law at the time.
Those arguing that the framers remained using English common law for the federal government are on the side of those Brittish lawyers who believe our Independence was illegal.
The framers clearly moved towards natural law when they "quit" their allegiance to the crown.