Keep calling it “Obot” misinformation so that everyone can see what a prick you are.
English Common Law was the basis of jurisprudence in the early party of this nation’s history. It was the lens that we viewed the law. The Marshall Court relied upon it exclusively, except in the matter of international and naval situations, and it is where many of our current legal precedence comes from.
The Supreme Court has plenty to say about the birther arguments, and none is good news for the birther movement.
The founders had to reject English common law in order to declare themselves to be U.S. citizens. ECL required perpetual allegiance. There’s no parallel for this in U.S. citizenship. ECL prohibited expatriation. This is another part of the law that had to be suspended and/or rejected in order to become citizens. Eventually, the U.S. signed a treaty with England that according to the Supreme Court made persons born in the U.S. British subjects if they adhered to the crown. The Minor court defined NBC as: all children born in the country to citizen parents. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark cited a ruling that said the white children of aliens born in the country were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States PRIOR to the 14th amendment. Ark then cited Minor as saying that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizen. Yes, the Supreme court has plenty to say and NONE of it would make Rubio eligible to be president.