The Supreme Court did not say English common law controls American law, but that it provided the Founders with a common vocabulary as they wrote legal phrases into the Constitution.
Also, the Supreme Court REJECTED the idea that English COMMON LAW supported someone being born overseas as being a NBS, or even a subject. See Section 4 in WKA.
Yet nowhere in the ruling where you play connect-the-dots does it say that natural born citizen and natural born subject are the same nor interchangeable.
Also, the Supreme Court REJECTED the idea that English COMMON LAW supported someone being born overseas as being a NBS, or even a subject. See Section 4 in WKA.
You need to support this with a citation. What I see says "all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively . . . . shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." This, as well as the British Nationality Act of 1948 makes Obama a natural born subject. The 14th amendment MIGHT make Obama a citizen of the United States and a dual citizen, but nothing in WKA suggests that it would make Obama a natural born citizen. Nothing.