Here's a little trip down memory lane for you. And a refresher on history.
Alexander Hamilton (Constitutional Convention member, co-author of The Federalist Papers) was one who applied the same rule as Horace Gray would a century later:
"But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived [i.e., England]" On the Carriage Tax, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 8.
The Framers consciously borrowed English law terminology and jurisprudence and stated "look to English law for better understanding of our Constitution"
Pray tell, how is this a "rebuke" of English law?
Was Hamilton another, along with Franklin and Adams, who "didn't get the memo" that our Constitution (and Declaration) is but an incorporation of the natural law of Emmerich de Vattel?
The exceptions to your theory just keep coming and coming. . . .
Nothing wrong with that where appropriate, but in areas where English law is in conflict with American legal principles, English law must be tossed out.
You appear to be a bit slow. This is exactly what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was tasked with doing by the Legislature in 1808. Toss out English Law junk that is incompatible with American Principles.
Note they did not toss out all of it. Just those parts of it that were incompatible with the new form of government. You know, like the status of "subject."
Pray tell, how is this a "rebuke" of English law?
You constantly do this "bait and switch" thing. You take a general statement, and you attempt to use it to ignore exceptions. You do this with Bingham as well. He clarified his position on children born to those of foreign allegiance, but you go find examples where he doesn't expound on that detail and you then try to apply them as the rule for his position on the matter. I do not believe this is a form of ignorance, I believe it is an effort to deliberately deceive people about what is the correct understanding of his position. You are attempting to do the same thing here with your English Law argument.
Yes, in general, English Law applies for the vast majority of mundane civil and criminal issues, but for this specific thing regarding the nature of the relationship between individual and state, it does not apply.
The "rebuke" to English law is the deliberately throwing off the required "perpetual allegiance". By asserting a right to be free of "perpetual allegiance", you have effectively rebuked the premise upon which such a law is founded; That the King rules by divine right and those born on his land are his rightful servants.