You said "everything English", no?? Is the term 'everything' not comprehensive or absolute?? Please decode.
Why did Englishmen assassinate Charles I and appoint Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector? If you asked them, they’d probably offer some mumbo-jumbo about asserting their sacred rights as Englishmen, as partly found in the common law, against a tyrant. But, clearly, these men were never governed by English law. Most likely they took their cue from international law scholars, Jesus, Plato, Aristotle, and Moses.
One certainly wouldn't accuse you of being consistent or logical.
Look closer. I’m not flapping my jaw for nothing. You think I like repeating painfully obvious, nigh-universally known historical facts? They started it.
Translated: I made a claim I can't support.
They do much more. Were you not around when they said Vattel has force of law because he appears in the Constitution, while common law is not law at all because we don’t have feudalism anymore?
Neither of those statements = "someone who wrote one of many books on international law is more important than the country that ruled them domestically, shaped their laws, and gave them their embryo of culture."
Once again, they started it. Look it up. I wouldn’t bother if no one made outrageous claims.
You haven't proven any of the claims are outrageous. You have, however, shown that you whine like a 2 year old.
“You said ‘everything English’, no?? Is the term ‘everything’ not comprehensive or absolute?? Please decode.”
Work on your reading comprehension. I assume you’re referencing this quote: “check out the gymnastics routines birthers engage in to discredit the influence of everything English...” By which I meant they were discrediting English influence of all varieties.
In no way does that sentence imply I think the American legal system—or the American-anything—is absolutely English, nor that everything about the English is stuffed somewhere in America, nor whatever else it is you read into it.
“One certainly wouldn’t accuse you of being consistent or logical.”
Actually, that’s perfectly logical and consistent. You asked how Americans could do this or that un-English thing. Namely, be citizens and have a president. I pointed out that the English themselves did even less English things: such as, kill their king and replace him with a quasi-dictator. If the English can be un-English, certainly the English-influenced Americans can.
“Translated: I made a claim I can’t support.”
I’d like to see you support that statement. Go back and read the posts yourself. Heck, you don’t have to go far in Red Steel’s case. My case is eminently supportable.
“Neither of those statements = ‘someone who wrote one of many books on international law is more important than the country that ruled them domestically, shaped their laws, and gave them their embryo of culture.’”
If not equal, they strongly imply. He’s saying Vattel has force of law, which is a lie, and implying that American common law is sui generis, as we broke free from feudalism when we ditched the British Empire. That type of language has actually been used. English common law is for kings and subjects. English common law doesn’t apply since we’re not under monarchy anymore. American common law refers ONLY to American common law and nothing else. And so on.
“You haven’t proven any of the claims are outrageous. You have, however, shown that you whine like a 2 year old”
Whine, schmine. It’s not any different than your complaints.