[Tau Food]

You're right that there is no national common law as such. Our judge-made tort, property, contract, etc. law was developed in state courts because the federal government felt that those areas of law were state matters. Sometimes, federal courts have had to apply (and at times develop) the common law of a state where jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship. Thus, for example, if a resident of Nevada, while driving in California, negligently injures a California resident and the California resident sues the Nevada resident in a federal court, that court will apply California law (statutory and common law) in resolving the case.

And, yes, common law principles can be properly considered in interpreting provisions of the Constitution. If a particular term in the Constitution has been unambiguously and precisely defined by courts in developing the common law, then it might be reasonable to assume that those who used that same term in the Constitution intended that same meaning when they used that word in the Constitution. But, in interpreting the Constitution, a judge who cares about "original intent" would be searching for the intent of the framers and not for the prior intent of some judge making common law. The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.

[Mr Rogers]

“The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.”

In the absence of any contrary reasonable interpretation, it would.

Natural born citizen/subject HAD a well known meaning at the time the US Constitution was written and ratified. That well known and accepted meaning, found in English common law, IS the meaning, unless someone can provide evidence that it was not.