“Apparently the main requirement for a “natural born subject” according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder’s possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects.”
You can take to mean whatever you like but your your jurisdiction is the inside of your own head.
What’s more, we did not adopt the English common law, only its language. “Natural born” means from birth. That’s language. Who qualifies as a citizen from birth is a question of law, not language.
You are like the climate gate "scientists." Trying to force reality to fit the notions of the "experts" you like. The issue has yet to be adjudicated in front of any court. They keep running away from it with excuses for not hearing the case, rather than a determination on the merits.
Whats more, we did not adopt the English common law, only its language. Natural born means from birth. Thats language. Who qualifies as a citizen from birth is a question of law, not language.
My, but we have the lawyers penchant for splitting hairs. When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim "no we didn't." When I point out that the definition of the British law as understood by at least one Founder, was that of being born to Parents in Obedience of the King, you claim we didn't adopt their law, just their language. Seems as though you wish to have your cake and eat it too.
As for your "Citizen at birth" argument, that is complete nonsense. Bellei was a "Citizen at birth", but he was not a "natural born citizen." That he LOST his citizenship is proof that "Citizen at birth" does not equal "natural born citizen."