LMAO!!! Like it or not the Constitution tell you who will be citizens (est. 1866/1868), not English Common Law.<quoted text>
Baloney. If they had intended to "throw out the common law"---they would have said so, and not one of them did. And Congressman Bingham, one of the leaders on this 14th in the House, said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
And Senator Trumbull, the leader on the 14th in the Senate said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is bornâ€¦. I read from Paschalâ€™s Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
In other words, they used the term Natural Born just the way that Tucker and Rawle did in the early 1800s, and just the way that the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision ruled.
The remainder of your post hasn't any relevance.