Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt.
And Madison had some things to say about the common law as well.
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
So Cpn Kook can put that in his Blackstone and smoke it.
For a long time, I've viewed you as just someone who lets his emotional angst over birth tourism cloud any sense of proper treatment of sources. I'm moving to the view that you're just a bit dim-witted to boot.
Last night you were all giddy about a sentence from Joseph Story that you thought meant he was supportive of your side, when in fact he was stating explicitly he was tracking the reasoning in Calvins Case. But you're a dunce and flunked out on that one.
Now you're all giddy again over this language about the Convention not adopting the common law into the Constitution. Again, you read, but understand you do not.
It's a point about the Supremacy Clause. Starting in 1776, the various states began enacting what are called "common law adoption statutes." And from there, the state legislatures began enacting various statutes to modify, limit, abrogate or otherwise "tweak" the common law rules to fit particular local preferences. Had the Convention in 1787 purported to incorporate the common law wholesale into federal law, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause everything the states had done legislatively (or judicially) since 1776 (or the date of their adoption statute) would have been undone.
You're in vain making the point that English law was rejected in total. On matters of municipal law (e.g, citizenship) they very much adopted and adapted English rules. (See, e.g., Jefferson's Virginia citizenship statute -- Post 379 above). And at the time of the Convention (as I've shown) there had been since 1776 prior, interchangeable usage of "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen." And there is no prior usage of "natural born" signifying "from like parents." So when we arrive at the Convention, it's ludicrous to posit that the Framers picked the term "NBC" and ascribed to it a meaning different from the prior usage in English of "natural born," and that they did this with no record of discussion that such is what they were doing. You've yet to explain that. But, clearly, it's a strained cast on history which you're forced to adopt to make your theory work.
You really need to stick to engineering. You are drowning in the pool of your own idiocy.