You missed the point entirely. The court said the legal LANGUAGE in the Constitution had to be interpreted in light of English Common law, because that was the basis for the language of law at the time. The term ‘natural born subject’ had a well known meaning in common law. The Founders used it interchangeably with ‘natural born citizen’ - or at least the Mass legislature which approved the Constitution did. Thus the common law meaning of NBS tells us what the Founders had in mind when they used the term NBC.
If you want to know what the Founders had in mind when they used a legal term, you need to know what the legal term meant at the time they wrote it. That ought to be obvious!
The Declaration of Independence does not mention English common law, mentioning instead the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
The United States is founded upon natural law.
English common law originates in the rule of a king, that rule being "common" throughout the kingdom.
Royalty is antithetical to our republic and its foundation in natural law.
I note that you again reinforce the point that ECL must be because a judge said so. Relying on a judge to "strengthen" your argument rather than refuting a single point makes the case for me.
Upthread in post 295 you cite Minor v. Happersett in an attempt to bolster your position.
Minor v. Happersett, in relevant part - “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
SCOTUS recognized doubts that native birth in US was sufficient to even make a citizen, never mind a natural born citizen. English common law holds no doubts that native birth suffices to make a natural born subject, therefor it could not have been English common law being referred to.