Of course not. But we were English colonies, and we derived our legal system and terminology, as well as our language from our mother country.
We don't speak "American" because there's no such distinct language. We speak ENGLISH.
WHY do we, being Americans, speak the ENGLISH language? Because THAT'S WHO WE GOT OUR LANGUAGE FROM.
That applies equally well to our LEGAL language as to our daily language. The language of the Constitution is the language of English legal terminology.
We didn't get our legal terminology from some Swiss guy who never even USED the term "natural born."
In fact, the term "natural born," like the terms "tort," "felony," and a bunch of others appear NO PLACE ELSE.
You claim the phrase means something other than what it meant in the common law. BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE.
American lawyers all received training in the ENGLISH COMMON LAW. And for many of them, that was the only training they received.
Both Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court have told us to look to the common law for the definition of terms in the Constitution.
So when the Constitution says "NATURAL BORN," it means what it meant in the common law. No more, no less.
Citizenship does not equate to natural born citizenship.
Of course it doesn't. This is another of the idiotic red herrings and straw men that Consitution-twisters throw out there.
There are two kinds of citizens: Natural born ones, and naturalized ones.
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the meaning of the whole.
"Natural born" means exactly the same thing when applied to "citizen" as it meant when applied to "subject." And the only difference between "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" is the difference between "citizen" and "subject."
Which isn't even that great. The Supreme Court told us they were equivalent terms, except that subjects have allegiance to a king, and citizens have allegiance to the entire body of the people.
The states were colonies. The United States NEVER WAS A COLONY.
A subject is chattel. A subject is beholden to another. A subject is inferior to his monarch.
In the United States ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is ANTITHETICAL to English law.
“Natural born subjects” are defined by Parliament, not ECL.
The United States has not incorporated acts of Parliament!
Stop being ridiculous.
That applies equally well to our LEGAL language as to our daily language. The language of the Constitution is the language of English legal terminology.
You are trying to make what was customary, compulsory. It is not. We chose NOT to follow English law in many areas, and most of all we chose not to follow the law regarding English Subjects. We also threw out the Debtors Prisons, the Church of England, and Lèse-majesté laws.
In fact, we pretty much threw out all the trappings of Monarchical law, and we did so successfully, that is until rubes who didn't get (or perhaps intentionally ignored) the memo started writing about American Law and ended up confusing subsequent students of law.