Well clearly the location where it was written is not more important than what was written. That rule would seemingly only apply in your mind to where people are produced.
WHAT it says determines the law. WHERE it was written does not.
WHAT the writer wrote determines the law. INTENT, what he MEANT to write does not.
Words are adopted, intent is not.
The law community of Philadelphia from this 1776-1787 period should know very well what was the intent of the Founders.
Quite aside from the inanity of thinking that your divined version of what the law community of Philadelphia thought, and that such speaks for the intent of the Founders, the Declaration was not written by Founders from Philadelphia. It was largely crafted by Thomas Jefferson while tended to by his slave Jupiter, based upon the previous writing of George Mason. Perhaps you should engage in psychoanalyzing the law community of Virginia.
Declaration of Independence Authors: Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Robert Livingston of New York, Roger Sherman of Massachusetts, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania.
Jefferson of Virginia is considered the primary author, and it is well known that he used the writings of George Mason of Virginia as a crib sheet.
Your contention that documents written in Philadelphia, by men of other states, should be interpreted by your perception of the intent of the legal community of Philadelphia is as ridiculous as interpreting the intent of the Paris Peace Agreement by divining the intent of the legal community of Paris, France.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/virginia-declaration-of-rights
The Virginia Declaration of Rights Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
A Declaration of Rights
Is made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
[snip]
The Constitution was not framed by the Founders, but by the Framers. The intent of the lawgivers was not ratified by the people, the black letter words were ratified. The plain meaning of the words, as they were generally understood at the time are the law of the land. The imagined intent of this or that Framer is not.
The common law attachment to the King was broken by the Declaration, and even more so by the formation of the Republic.
All attachment or allegiance to the king was broken. Being completely broken in the first instance, it was not broken moreso in the second instance.
The former colonies were free to adopt what laws and legal system they chose. They formally and explicitly chose to adopt so much of the English common law as was not repugnant to the Constitution. Caselaw from England may be cited today as instructive, but it is not binding on any American court.
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834)
33 U.S. 655 (1834)
Previous to this case, injunctions had issued out of chancery to prevent the publication of certain works, at the instance of those who claimed a property in tue copyright, but no decision had been given. And a case had been commenced, at law, between Tonson and Collins on the same ground, and was argued with great ability, more than once, and |the court of king’s bench were about to take the opinion of all the judges, when they discovered that the suit had been brought by collusion, to try the question and it was dismissed. This question was brought before the house of lords, in the case of Donaldson v. Beckett and others, reported in 4 Burr. 2408; Lord Mansfield, being a peer, through feelings of delicacy, declined giving any opinion. The eleven judges gave their opinions on the following points. 1st. Whether at common law an author of any book or literary composition, had the sole right of first printing, and publishing the same for sale; and might bring an action against any person who printed, published and sold the same, without his consent. On this question there were eight judges in the affirmative, and three in the negative.
2d. If the author had such right originally, did the law take it away, upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition; and might any person, afterward, reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author. This question was answered in the affirmative, by four judges, and in the negative by seven.
3d. If such action would have lain, at common law, is it taken away by the statute of 8 Anne; and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy, except on the foundation of the said statute, and on the terms of the conditions prescribed thereby. Six of the judges, to five, decided that the remedy must be under the statute.
Where any statute law applies, such as the statute of 8 Anne, common law is swept aside, made inapplicable. The statute of 8 Anne is from 8 April 1710.
Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888)
124 U.S. 478, Opinion of the Court:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense, of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591.
There is no general federal common law in the United States. The common law of England is not United States law. In states which adopted it, it is state law where it is not inconsistent with federal law, or preempted by state statute law. In the face of any applicable statute law, in the United States and in England, the statute law is the law and the common law is not.
WHAT it says determines the law. Sure, when everyone understands what it says. What if they don't? What if they have trouble grasping what was meant by a specific word? Where do you go for clarification?
WHAT the writer wrote determines the law. INTENT, what he MEANT to write does not.
When the words are unclear as to their meaning, then an effort to grasp intent must be initiated.
Your contention that documents written in Philadelphia, by men of other states, should be interpreted by your perception of the intent of the legal community of Philadelphia
Straw man. I didn't say that. What I said is that if there is any difficulty grasping the meanings of words or "terms of art", then perhaps you can get clarification as to their meaning or intent by looking at the understanding of their meaning from within the writings of the legal community of Philadelphia.
They were there after all, and if anyone should be expected to know what the founders meant by "natural born citizen", it should be these men who participated in the event, or who associated with them during this era of common legal understanding of the terms.
All attachment or allegiance to the king was broken. Being completely broken in the first instance, it was not broken moreso in the second instance.
Around this time in history, there came to be quite the series of conflicts between American law and English law. Apparently not all "attachment or allegiance" to the King was broken. There was still matters in which courts wanted to cite English law which was at odds with American ideas and principles, and it was causing a great deal of trouble and consternation in the states.
Much of English statute law and common law was simply incompatible with American legal principles and had to be discarded. Madison even weighed in on the subject in a letter which I currently cannot find, because it's been so long ago and i've forgotten where I put it. (if you want to help find it, I believe Madison starts by saying "What can be said of the common law?")
At long last, in the case of Pennsylvania, the Legislature ordered the Pennsylvania Supreme court to resolve the issue by deciding what part of English law should be thrown out, and what part should be kept.
