This isn't England. We are not subjects of a Queen or King.
You must admit that the concept of “natural-born citizen” was derived from the concept of “natural-born subject” ...
Since the Constitution was written by the Founders [using their knowledge of English Common Law, English Statute Law, and YES Vattel] AND has NEVER been altered by amendment or SCOTUS ruling - the ORIGINAL meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen” STILL stands ...
The passages that I quoted PROVE that there was NO SUCH law in England that stated the child of an alien father was a “natural-born subject”. To the CONTRARY, in England, the child followed the condition of the father ...
In the intervening years between 1571-1608, there was NO law passed in England to reverse this ...
THEREFORE, the ruling in Calvin’s Case [1608] was BOGUS. Lord Coke stated that ANY child born in England [WHATSOEVER, excluding ambassador’s children and children of enemeies] was a natural-born subject - and HAD BEEN so in the annals of English Law ...
Calvin’s Case [which many legal scholars point to] was a POLITICAL case. The ruling came down in the King’s favor, since he wanted legitimacy as the Sovreign of BOTH England AND Scotland. And, Lord Coke [appointed to the bench by the King AND a former Prime Minister of England] served it up for him ...
The passages from Parliament in 1571 AND the British Nationality Act of 1728 BOTH stated that English children born OUTSIDE of the realm were “natural-born subjects” ...
THERFORE, the Founders WOULD HAVE KNOWN that a child born to an English father within the United States was a dual citizen AND, THUS, incapable of devoting SINGULAR AND ABSOLUTE allegiance to EITHER England [on one hand] OR the United States [on the other] ...
THEREFORE, such a child WOULD NOT be a “natural-born citizen” ...
This isn't England. We are not subjects of a Queen or King.
If I might interject, I think his point is that there are people who claim "natural born citizen" is derived from the English Common law term "natural born subject." He is pointing out that when it came to the succession of the Monarchy, not even the English would use the "jus soli" argument and instead would insist on the "jus sanguinus" argument.
In other words, you couldn't be the leader of England except by right of blood. The obvious parallel being to that of our President. He is saying that even the English demanded their leaders be English by right of blood, despite their common law definition of "natural born subject."
I have made this argument a few times myself, but I wasn't previously aware of this passage he cited to back up this argument.
Bookmark.