It didn't specify anything about "English" common law. The definition of NBC is a verbatim match of Law of Nations, which is ALSO recognized as common law.
It’s the same common law that the Wong Court referred to repeatedly, over dozens of pages.
No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.
The remedy for a bad President is to scratch and claw at the bad President, not to scratch and claw at our Constitution.
Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.
The law of nations wasn't just Vattel. Have you even done any reading of the law of nations? There were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the Law of Nations. Vattel was only one; albeit a prominent one. But his views on citizenship WERE NOT SHARED BY EVEN ONE OF THE OTHER 7 OR 8 MAJOR WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.
So there absolutely IS NO "LAW OF NATIONS 'DEFINITION'" of natural born citizenship, or of citizenship in general, for that matter. Because the major writers on the law of nations held a BUNCH of different and conflicting views on citizenship.
No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.
The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.
Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.