Replies

English Common Law was specifically rejected in many particulars, and specifically in the case of the term "citizen" as it was applied in the United States. English law did not recognize "Citizens", but instead invoked the term "subject" to indicate their relationship with their government. The founders explicitly rejected this English Law concept during a little event called "The American War of Independence." You may have heard of it? They also specifically rejected the English Common law during the subsequent war of 1812, during which the British were continuously trying to force us to accept the English Definition of "Subject" in the place of our substitute condition called "citizen."

You do realize the colonists did not generally reject English Common Law? Rather they objected that the King did not abide by it in regard to the colonies. "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..."[emphasis added]

Here is what Constitution.org has to say about Common Law as a source of the Constitution:

Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) Considered the book that "lost the colonies" for England. This text delineates the legal principles of common law which ensure the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone was quoted by the colonists twice as often as they quoted Locke. [emphasis added]

See also Magna Carta and Its American Legacy on the National Archive site.

You do realize the colonists did not generally reject English Common Law?

Yes. Much of it was adopted as American law. Much of it was rejected. The aspect of English law regarding "subjects" was specifically and explicitly rejected.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason "

Rather they objected that the King did not abide by it in regard to the colonies. "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..."[emphasis added]

That was while they were colonies of England. Once the decision had been made to become independent, they eradicated parts of it root and branch. Our Entire Bill of rights was specifically created to reject certain aspects of British law.

Here is what Constitution.org has to say about Common Law as a source of the Constitution:

Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) Considered the book that "lost the colonies" for England. This text delineates the legal principles of common law which ensure the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone was quoted by the colonists twice as often as they quoted Locke. [emphasis added]

That the colonists were not being given the consideration that ordinary Englishmen had is not in dispute. Protesting their lack of rights as Englishmen was part of what initiated the move to independence, but after having declared Independence and tasked with the creation of a new government, the Now Federalists improved upon English law by creating many new rights and safeguards not part of English law. They created New American law.