the Law, even English common law, such an obfuscation...

Everyone here knows you are bordering on psychotic.

Like I said, does being on the dole that long always make you Brits crazy and prone to conspiracy theories?

That is the other difference between you Brits and we Americans, we always work for a living... LOL!

The court in US 649 (1898), also notes:

Since there was no definition of "natural born citizen" found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England:

OH NOES ENGLISH COMMON LAW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LL?

The next part of the ruling:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Oh No, what now LL?

Would you like more case law, or do you have another meaningless canard to bring up. Well I am sure you have another meaningless canard. It seems to be your shtick.

U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'

Oh Poor LL, he will never understand US caselaw, oh well, we can tell him and prove to him he is wrong over and over again, but being a lunkhead he will continue to insist he is correct. Whatever, come back with you LLD in Constitutional Law, then you might be given more respect.

You said

You are only natural born dear, if you are born on American soil to two American parents covered in American soil.

Wrong, you are a natural born US citizen even if you are born to two illegal aliens but you are born on US soil, but Brits really cannot comprehend our Constitutional Law. Case law supports what I say.

Biographer, you are hilarious, if you are a biographer I am sure you have other works, please direct us to your other work. Let's see you've claimed to be an actor, an engineer, and at one point you called structural engineers, let's see boring, too bad they are some of the smartest folks on earth, in fact I wouldn't cross a bridge one hasn't designed and put their stamp upon!

Does being on the dole for eons make one more prone to conspiracy theories?

Just wondering.

I totally crack myself up.

Did you have a meltdown after I posted.... Nothing could make me happier than to torment a crazed neo-confederate.. carry on Captain Anger. Your douchebaggery has also been measured on the scrotometer, and holy shit, you broke it! Oh well, I can get another one, they are a dime a dozen in "librul stores" the very same stores where we purchased gallons and gallons of sour grape cool aid last November, and every time you post I have a drink on you!

LOL crazy angry spoincey.

Spoincey, even the blow up doll deflates when he comes near!

Hey Harry, you gonna take his committee away from him now? I mean, come on, he is taunting you like a 16 year old who has been told no by his parents and is doing whatever he can to dig his hole of martyrdom more deeply. Time to cut the umbilical cord don't you think?

You know, ala Office Space like I said somewhere else, banished to the basement, in a room with no lights, heat or windows, no budget, no staff, surrounded by boxes of office supplies he isn't allowed to use, and take away his favorite stapler. Come on Harry, grow a pair.

You said:

you can make fun of Orly Taitz all day if you want

I say, "okay, but it is awfully easy, I might need something more challenging."

And then you surprisingly wrote

She was effectively told that it was too late.

Umm, no, Judge Carter effectively ruled Taitz's client had no standing to bring a case which is entirely different. The removal of a President comes under Article I of the constitution. Only the legislature can remove a sitting President.