England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)
You see, if one actually takes time to read thoroughly & study thoroughly, one doesn't find themselves with their foot in their mouth because one knows that NOT all the states were founded by the Brits and thus not all the states held to British feudal “jus corona” law which Tucker also expounds on. So, how's that foot tasting?
If you're referring to my summaries of the Tucker quote, you're going to have to tell me. The quote actually says "Jura Coronae" which is defined as
A right or prerogative which belongs exclusively to the Crown; a royal right, such as in regards to taxation, treaties and war, land or pardons.If you use the alternate Jus Coronae, it still means the same. So yes, it all pertains to the crown. All laws pertaining to the crown, as Tucker states, were obviously obliterated by the Revolution.
As to your quote, I suggest you stop grabbing quotes off birther websites without checking them. Where does the quote you cited originate, so one can see the context? Please link.
Since the quote refers to an English statute from 1350, I can only guess that it refers to "A statute for those who are born in parts beyond sea," wherein it says that those born of English parents who are overseas, can still inherit English property. This is your argument that common law does not follow jus soli? You can read quite a bit about this just by reading the WKA decision, it discusses this statute by Edward III, and also Binney's analysis of it.