First of all, it wasn't such a simple point of law, as England had never before had a situation in which the King of England was also the King of another, separate, distinct country.
Secondly, they assembled "all the judges of England" to hear the case because they felt the decision had important ramifications. And it did.
Secondly, they assembled "all the judges of England" to hear the case because they felt the decision had important ramifications. And it did.
This point is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. When James I (in Scotland he was James VI) took the throne, he was GOING TO GET HIS PEOPLE RECOGNIZED as English Subjects. As the Judges in England presided by the grace of the King, they were going to give him the decision that he wanted.
You do Realize that the Lord Coke argued on the King's behalf for the Plaintiff "Calvin", don't you?
The case was heard by all of the judges of England, while Coke was Chief Justice of Common Pleas, with arguments by Bacon as Solicitor General and Hobart as Attorney General. Coke was very active in this case, arguing the King’s position throughout and presenting, here the last argument, for Calvin, before the Court’s judgment. The Court, considering arguments based on the nature of allegiance, majesty, conquest, natural reason, and an unalterable law of nature, held that Calvin was not an alien, and he could hold land in England. This case had tremendous implications for James’s view of forging a single nation of Great Britain, as well as for the rights of subjects living in the new colonies overseas. For the effects of citizenship on a local level, see James Bagg’s Case, p. 404.
In a Kingdom, the King gets the laws he wants. I'm surprised he had two hold-outs, and that it wasn't unanimous.