Now, notwithstanding your citation of Madison's letter to George Washington from 10/18/1787, his choice of adjective ("monarchical") is applicable only insofar as various aspects of the English common law in relation to the British monarchy Which is exactly what jus soli is.
Are you not familiar with the feudal origins of being bound to the land?
You're mixing concepts again. "Jus soli" (nationality or citizenship acquired by birth within a given territory) and "common law" are different things.
No they are not, they are the same thing. Else, cite me the English statute that makes a man a subject from having been born within the realm of the king. You won't find it because it's "common law."
Calvin's case was not even unanimous.
We know this, for example, because every single country in South America operates off of a civil law system and not a common law system; meanwhile, every single one of them practices birthright citizenship/nationality to some degree or another.
They practice jus sanguinus.
England and it's derivatives are about the only places in the world that do it the wrong way, and this of course traces back to Calvin's case, which was decided exactly as the King *REQUIRED* it to be decided.
A quick search shows that this particular section is cited from a 2006 article by David J. Seipp: Our Law Our Law, Their Law , Their Law, History, and the Citation of F , and the Citation of Foreign Law eign Law .
Well i'm glad you found it, because I could not, but his point remains. The Colonies immediately rejected English Law and especially monarchical based English law.
I do not see criticisms of the common law in principle; rather,
*He* is not criticizing the common law, he is pointing out that during the early era in US history, the new leadership was criticizing the common law, just as Madison did in his letter.
In the past I have ran across many articles confirming that the early leadership eschewed anything that could be connected to Monarchy, as in jus soli.
Here is an official example of it.
... I see particularities of common law as practiced by England which were rejected due to incompatibilities with the new American government.
Exactly. Jus Soli is monarchical in nature. It is inherently monarchical. Let me give you an idea of what one contemporary thought of it.
Alexander Mcleod, d.d. (1815)
Which is exactly what jus soli is. It literally isn't. "Common law" and "jus soli" are categorically different things by definition. Elsewise you'd be hard-pressed to explain why Mexico and most modern-day South American countries, despite having no common law tradition, nonetheless practice jus soli.
England and it's derivatives are about the only places in the world that do it the wrong way
Again, not true, as highlighted above with regards to non-English countries in the Americas. Take Mexico for example:
Constitution of Mexico, Article 30 — "The Mexican nationals by birth are: Those born in the Mexican territory, regardless of their parents’ nationality..."
And to call jus soli "the wrong way" is a rather strident take on a difference of opinion; whether a country practices "jus soli" or "jus sanguinus" or some combination thereof is up to them to decide. That you call it "the wrong way" does not matter.
The Colonies immediately rejected English Law and especially monarchical based English law.
Again, not true. *Some* English laws were jettisoned that were deemed incompatible with the new Constitution; a lot more of the common law remained (and some put it down in writing that this was the case).
In the past I have ran across many articles confirming that the early leadership eschewed anything that could be connected to Monarchy, as in jus soli. Here is an official example of it.
This citation from Simon Snyder says no such thing: it literally is requesting that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania examine the current laws in force within the commonwealth, to report to the next Legislature which of these were English statutes, and whether or not said statutes should be incorporated into the commonwealth's own statutes. It says nothing about rejecting the common law (much less jus soli) wholesale.
And I know this has been pointed out to you before (on at least one other thread by Penelope), because this same report of the judges provided a list of English common laws which were recommended to be incorporated, or to not be incorporated. On page 5, the report's preface is quoted as follows: "With respect to English statues enacted since the settlement of Pennsylvania, it has been assumed as a principle, that they do not extend here, unless they have been recognized by our acts of Assembly, or adopted by long continued practice in courts of justice.—Of the latter description there are very few, and those, it is supposed, were introduced from a sense of their evident utility. As English statutes they had no obligatory force, but from long practice they may be considered as incorporated with the law of our country."
The portions I've underlined is the practice of common law by definition.
Also, just as a fun little tidbit: on page 36, one of the English statutes listed as "To be incorporated" is described as follows: "An act to enable his Majesty's natural born subjects to inherit the estates of their ancestors either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens."
Jus Soli is monarchical in nature. It is inherently monarchical.
No it isn't. Birthright citizenship can be practiced regardless of what form a government may take. "Jus soli" definitionally contains no reference to monarchy.
Let me give you an idea of what one contemporary thought of it.
I've noticed a recurring habit of yours to give references without providing actual citations; without that information, you're essentially asking someone to take as reputable the word of a random stranger with the name of Alexander McLeod.
But I've again done the work on your behalf, and tracked it down to Alexander McLeod (a Presbyterian minister whose father was a minister of the Church of Scotland, and one that did not arrive in America until 1792), and his book "A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War" from 1815.
Notwithstanding that I disagree with his opinions on certain points of logic and philosophy, I'm wondering why exactly we should care about the opinion of a Presbyterian minister who had no actual legislative or judicial role within the government of the United States.
After all, he says the following on page 169 (italics are in the original, underline is emphasis mine): "A nation, it is true, as well as any other body politic, may give pledges, and contract debts; and every member of the body is bound to redeem the pledge, and discharge the obligation, in its true spirit and design: but no man is bound to continue a member, longer than the nature of the connexion itself requires. There is not in the constitution of the body politic any such regulation, as requires every man to abide in the country which gave him birth. It is not necessary to civil society, that such a principle should be recognized: it is not proper that it should: and even if the government should succeed in introducing it expressly into the constitution, the stipulation, as it would be immoral, could not be obligatory."
As far as American law goes, the 14th Amendment outweighs McLeod's opinion. That he considered jus soli immoral is irrelevant.