No need, you provide all the entertainment we can stand.
Actually, the idea of natural born citizenship seems to go back even before Calvin's Case.
If this is true, why did "Calvin" need to bring his case? Why would it need 14 judges to decide it? Seems like the first peasant that came along could explain it. If Only Peasant Jeff had come along, it could have saved everybody a lot of trouble when he explained to them what the "common" law was.
"Your Honors, the Law's quite simple, it is." (Pictured below, Peasant Jeff explaining the law to the Judges)
.
.
But 1607 is quite old enough.
What have you got older than 1608? Show it.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
I'm not farting with the rest of your message. You write too much crap.