Oops. I misjudged you. Your mission is to confuse. But I’ll bite on your general premise; we respect both the British and the American common law. Lets see what happens.
From Kent’s Commentaries on Citizenship:
“It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested by any act of their own. In the case of Macdonald, who was tried for high treason, in 1746, before Lord Ch. J. Lee, and who, though born in England, had been educated in France, and spent his riper years there, his counsel spoke against the doctrine of natural allegiance as slavish, and repugnant to the principles of their revolution. The Court, however, said, it had never been doubted, that a subject born, taking a commission from a foreign prince, and committing high
treason, was liable to be punished as a subject for that treason.”
Our commander in chief, born, by his own admission, a natural born subject of The Crown, is liable to be punished for treason to Britain. Interpol, which, thanks to our president, now has no restrictions against arresting our citizens, can enter the White House and arrest the British subject for one of his attacks on the peaceful villagers of Afganistan, if there is some civil case brought against him - perhaps by the Sharia courts of England.
Then, concerning the regard of our founders for British Common Law, in the words of Alexander Hamilton:
“The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders’ emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later
written, as we will see below.”
That's simply not true.
And apparently yours is to insult and provide unsubstantiated conjecture. Hallmarks of conservatism they are not!
Our commander in chief, born, by his own admission, a natural born subject of The Crown, is liable to be punished for treason to Britain.
And how is that, for he was not born on British soil. Unless you have proof otherwise?
Then, concerning the regard of our founders for British Common Law, in the words of Alexander Hamilton:
Please read Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84 where he reassures his fellow New Yorkers
that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured
and extends it with language defining where the power for the law comes from (the people) and the ability for the people to change it (amendment).
He also argues against the bill of rights, as they are
not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
This is the English common law understanding that rights not spoken of are inherently with the people, not the Government. Hamilton's concern was that by strictly defining certain rights, a case could be made that any area outside that definition would be inferred as residing with the Government - exactly was we see happening now...
So we have Hamilton acknowledging the foundation of the US legal system and Constitution literally and implicitly relying on British common law; not a surprise given he was a lawyer educated in the British legal system (as were many of the founders).