I would grant that the Founders, many of whom were attorneys, understood citizenship before the Revolution in terms of English law, under which Acts of Parliament overrode common law traditions. Unlike the author of the Arkeny decision, or Judge Malihi, they would have been aware of the British Nationality Acts of 1730 and 1772, both of which bestow status as “natural born subjects” to the offspring of natural born subject FATHERS (not parents, not mothers — the sexist pigs stipulated FATHERS). English law regarding citizenship as the Founders would have understood it serves much better for denying Obama American nbc status than granting it. (I realize that internet discussion will change nothing about this farce, and I agree with most of your post. I just find the recourse to common law to be inapplicable).
Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.
The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.
Relavent details, here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case
b.t.w. the Law of Nature, natural law, is non denominational. It's one of the reasons why the framers went with it instead of the Christian only English version.
From what I knew -- and I actually had some of this stuff in law school about 20 years ago -- the common law rule was jus solis, to which some additional categories were added by statute. So when I just looked up what you posted, it seems that the British Nationality Acts you reference pertain only to children born overseas. They are a statutory addition to common law jus solis, not a change for those born in the country.