It is strange that you assert this, because by the common law we couldn't be free of England. Anyway, you might want to look at what I discovered.
The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning.
So you are saying congress "modified" the term? I thought we were in agreement that congress could not change the meaning of any constitutional term?
I have no doubt Vattel is mentioned at places, he was an important writer on international law. However, as Justice Scalia mentions, much of our Constitution is founded on common law. Or do you think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about?
Much of our principles and procedures of law are based on the common law, but we did in fact specifically throw off aspects of it which were not compatible with the existence of our newly declared nation, and those regarding what constitutes a British subject vs an American Citizen were pretty much the entire point of the War of Independence, and the War of 1812. As for Vattel, I just ran across this last night. You might find it interesting. Also you might peruse the ubiquity of Vattel to the founders by looking here as well.
Which we have discussed before. Slaves were omitted because they were property. Indians were omitted because they were considered sovereign nations inside the US. You’ve been shown them before, do I have to again find the quotes showing that?
So would Slaves or Indians born in England be "subjects" or not? Since you seem intent on maintaining consistency with English laws, this is an interesting question. It seems likely you will have to violate one of your premises regarding either English law or American law whichever way you answer the question. :)
Same error I mention above. Because we did not adopt all of common law, you seem to argue we couldn't have adopted any. I remind you again we did not declare independence because we didn't generally like common law, but because the rights guaranteed by common law were being withheld from the colonists.
The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning. So you are saying congress "modified" the term? I thought we were in agreement that congress could not change the meaning of any constitutional term?
Ah, did you finally agree that Congress didn't change the meaning (as you claimed they did)? Pleased to hear it. No, Congress didn't "modify" the term, by statute they agreed that those born of US citizens overseas were also natural born. Since COngress had been granted the right to make rules of naturalization, I don't see this was illegal. Do you?
we did in fact specifically throw off aspects of it which were not compatible with the existence of our newly declared nation, and those regarding what constitutes a British subject vs an American Citizen were pretty much the entire point of the War of Independence, and the War of 1812.
We explicitly rejected the "no expatriation" idea. We did not reject "born on the soil" = "natural born" (usual exceptions).
So would Slaves or Indians born in England be "subjects" or not? Since you seem intent on maintaining consistency with English laws, this is an interesting question. It seems likely you will have to violate one of your premises regarding either English law or American law whichever way you answer the question. :)
Good try, with a touch of strawman thrown in. I have never been "intent on maintaining consistency with English laws," I have pointed out an area that the courts, early legal scholars, and Attorney's general affirmed that we follow English common law.
As for your example, since Somersett's case in 1772, there were no slaves in England - any slave was automatically free on entry into England. As to whether the English had a racial restriction, I can't answer, and don't have time right now to do the research. For Indians, the same would be true; if England had no racial restrictions, the child of an American Indian born in England would be a natural born subject. The reason that was not so in the US was because Indians were regarded as members of a separate nation that just happened to be located in the US.