No long. I'm usually about two steps ahead of you in these matters. Ha! You just think you are two steps ahead. As with your current opinion on the topic, you just figure out which way the crowd is going and then jump in front and wave your flag.
Cpn Kook depicted below.
An original or deep thinker you are not.
I gave you an entire article on the influence of Blackstone's natural law view on the Declaration and Constitution. You try reading it and getting past this "it's either all English natural law or some other natural law" view.
And you get over this notion that the consequences of Independence have anything to do with Blackstone or British law. The United States left those waters for new ones first voyaged by the Swiss.
You see, the character of a Republic is substantially different from that of a Monarchy.
And you get over this notion that the consequences of Independence have anything to do with Blackstone or British law. The United States left those waters for new ones first voyaged by the Swiss. Why should I get over it when there are published articles that adopt that view? Your problem is your "either/or" way of looking at this: that 'influence' can only be ascribed to one source.
Besides, I have to recognize that this comment is coming from the person who thinks a Justice writing a paragraph raising a question on domicile, who then quotes a writer giving a rule on domicile, who then summarizes that writer's view on domicile -- is actually trying to make a point about citizenship! That is failure at the fundamental reading comprehension level. I suspect your grasp of these other sources is no better.