[IMG]http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab264/Dragging_Canoe/ScreenHunter_11Nov040628.gif[/IMG] 
That analysis used a number of false and erroneous statements and claims. English common law was not the source of law for all jurisdictions of the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Each of the states was responsible for establishing its own citizenship and naturalization laws following their declaration of independence from Great Britain. A uniform system of naturalization law for all of the United States did not occur until decades into the 19th Century following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Until then, the requirements for citizenship differed from one state to the next in the United States of America, and these states used a variety of Continental European (Ancien Regime), english Common Law, and natural law principles from England, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Rome, and more.
Alexander Hamilton proposed to make any citizen of the United States eligible for the Office of the President so long as the age and residency requirements were also satisfied. John Jay objected and asked for the qualifications to require a natural born citizen requirement. The erroneous analysis omits the obvious distinction that a natural born citizen requirement is superfluous and quite unnecessary if the intent was to authorize any U.S. citizen to be eligible to the Office of the President. Even the English Common law being cited required two citizen parents for the child to be deemed to have English/British citizenship by jus sanguinnis.
The whole issue was about a determination of which sovereign could claim the allegiance of a child at the time of the child’s birth. Dual citizenship was not recognized and was an impossibility at the time the laws and the U.S. Constitution were written and practiced. It is quite clear whether using Charles Vattel’s Law of Nations, blacksone’s Commentaries, or the ancient laws and traditions of Roman law common to Europe and America; citizenship followed the citizenship of the parents or the father, unless you were born in the Jurisdiction of the Sovereign of Great Britain. Under the naturalization laws of the some states after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, birth upon U.S. soil sometimes was not enough to qualify for citizenship in that state and thereby the United States.
The person presently calling himself Barack Hussein Obama II is on public record acknowledging that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of his own birth. Vattel’s Law of Nations used by John Jay and the other authors of the U.S. Constitution defined a natural born citizen as the child of two parents having U.S. citizenship at the time of the child’s birth. Obviously, even he acknowledges that he did not have the requisite two U.S. citizen parents and undivided loyalty to the United States at the time of his birth.
[IMG]http://i870.photobucket.com/albums/ab264/Dragging_Canoe/ScreenHunter_11Nov040628.gif[/IMG] Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. were all born to parents who were obviously British subjects, not U.S. citizens.
Unless there is some sort of "grandfathering clause" in the Constitution, then being born in one of the 13 Colonies was good enough for them to be POTUS-eligible.
What is with all of your stuff about foreign and international law?
Netherlands, Switzerland as basis for US legal system? To be used to determine the elibibility of a candidate for office in 2008?
You are trying to cite the “laws” of ancient royalty to define the eligibility for modern, elected civilian office, in our constitutional republic.
Either the Constitution defines “Natural Born” differently than “Native Born” or it doesn’t.
Period. If it doesn’t, it will be up to the USSC to decide, and I believe it would rule as does the article in the Congressional Record.
Natural Born = Native Born.
Obama and Rubio can by President, that way; but not George Romney.