Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.<quoted text>That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.
And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
Your nutty theory is wrong.