It was patently obvious to the founders that English Common Law was NOT going to be adequate in the case of the presidency precisely because there would be no line of ascendancy and they turned to Vatell!
Well then you don't agree with CJ Taft when he said the Framers considered all sorts of laws
"but, when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed themselves in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood."No doubt exists they were concerned about the distinction between a monarch and a president, though a number of the delegates thought "his excellency" should be elected for life. It explains in part the lengthy debates they had over the powers of the legislative branch. But if in your mind there is no doubt about the meaning of the term natural born citizen, why then did they just assume anything more than its customary usage in Britain?
Certainly at least the Massachusetts delegates understood how that term was used at least in Massachusetts, since it was used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject". One would think at least those delegates would have said, "whoa now".
But since it had not been explained differently, and the Constitution was filled with language commonly in use at the time, why should not the Court in Wong have interpreted it that way?