[Sherman Logan]

Your problem is that as far as I can tell the threefold distinction has never been recognized by a single government agency or judicial decision. So while you may be accurately parsing the Constitution, the courts and the interpretation of the Constitution in practice do not seem to agree with you.

The Constitution does indeed list the three groups. But it is referring to all citizns as one category and two subgroups.

Citizens refers to all who hold citizenship. Sub-groups of "citizen" are naturalized citizen and natural-born or native-born citizen.

British Common Law, which we Americans detest to this day.

It would be odd for us to do so, since we practice it, in all states except LA, to this day.

23 of the 55 Founders were attorneys. The law they had learned and which they had practiced was common law. Therefore, when they used a legal term without explanation it is bizarre to think they were using it in any other than a common law meaning.

BTW, it's not "British Common Law." Scottish Law is not fully based on common law and indeed differs from it a good deal more than that of most American states.

[NaturalBornConservative]

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

~Res Ipsa Loquitur~

George Mason was a “Framer” and was responsible for the bill of rights. Mr. Mason said it plainly and without equivocation. Therefore, your 21st Century interpretation is moot.