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.
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.
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."
DiogenesLamp wrote: “My, but we have the lawyers penchant for splitting hairs.”
Sorry if you find what lawyers do too complex, but I’ve been telling you that understanding the precedents is like that. Real experts, such as the editors of /Black’s Law Dictionary/ actually have the expertise to do so.
“When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim ‘no we didn’t.’”
You quote me falsely.