“At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..oh sure, some individual states still adhered to it. That was the only law they knew and there was no central government in place yet...”
No. We are still a common law country. That is why court cases matter. Our common law began to diverge from Great Britain with independence, but we were and remain a common law country.
“Being a sovereign nation, our new government looked to international law.”
Nope. On the matter of citizenship, we have always been a ‘birth in the US’ sort of place. The losers in the WKA case argued that a century of common law should have been overturned and that the US should use roman law as its basis, and that idea was laughed out of court.
We do not operate under English common law. ENGLISH common law. Which is what I said and you ignored. I have read enough about the early history of the country to know that the individual states did maintain some of the English common laws, but that the Federal government looked to international law. Common law and English common law are not identical.
On the matter of citizenship, most countries recognize some level of “birth on the soil”, it is how dual citizenship came about. Roman law was referenced, as was English, as was French, etc. The US did not just adhere to English common law after winning it’s independence. It’s common to look to long established laws of other nations and incorporate them.
If ‘birth on the soil” was be all end all, why did the US have to pass so many Acts regarding citizenship?
“At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..
___________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Blackstone is still taught in America’s law schools...