English Common Law was never adopted by the United States; they chose instead, the Roman model, which was suited to sovereigns, rather than commoners as in the English model.
We had no royalty, nor had we any commoners, so Common Law could never apply.
English common law provided the LEGAL LANGUAGE of US law. That is universally recognized. It formed the legal language used at the time the Constitution was written, and the Constitution cannot be understood - per original intent - without knowing what the legal terms meant to the folks doing the writing.
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar 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.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Of course, I’ve pointed this out to you at least 100 times in the past, and you keep making false posts to suggest that English common law has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
It is also damn silly to pretend our legal system is based on Roman law. There is a reason why you cannot convince a single court, a single state or a single member of Congress - because YOU are WRONG.