And where do we find the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton told us that we should look to the legal language of the country that we derived our legal system from - England, and the English common law.So when the Constitution says "natural born," the definition of that term, according to Alexander Hamilton (as well as due to the fact that it occurs NO PLACE ELSE) is to be found in the English common law.
That's it. Period. It's not that hard.
No, it's pretty easy to get stuff wrong, especially for you.
In a letter to George Washington, James Madison disagrees with your thinking.
“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
Once again, you argue fallaciously by leaving out the CONTEXT of Madison’s letter.
Madison’s letter was in response to George Mason’s COMPLAINT that we had failed to adopt the common law, or at least its guarantees of freedom, at the national level. He and others maintained, rightly, that the common law also had so many unacceptable things in it that it was simply impossible for us to adopt it wholesale at the national level.
That doesn’t mean the terms in our Constitution mean something other than what they ALWAYS meant, both in the common law of England and in our own law. And it doesn’t mean we didn’t adopt the same rule for how citizenship was established.
So once again, another fallacious argument, like pretty much everything you say.
Do you never tire of twisting out history and our law, and of looking and acting like an idiot?
If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
What could the Convention have done? Wow, really? After all your squawking about truncated quotes, you post that and don't even note with ellipses where you've cut pieces out? Let's read the whole passage:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.
See the bolded part? He's saying that the separation from G.Britain did not throw us into a state of nature--i.e., lawless. If it didn't, then, clearly some body of laws (along with rights and obligations) applied after the separation. What were they?
Let's look at George Mason's letter that this is in response to:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
What is his concern? That the benefits provided by the common law are not explicitly secured by the Constitution. It's to this concern that Madison says "What could the Convention have done?" Either the Constitution explicitly adopts all of English common law and in so doing brings along a lot of irrelevant and unwanted crap, plus thereby negates the alterations the states had made; or it lists everything that would be adopted and thereby becomes "a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution."
So if you read Madison's whole quote in conjunction with the letter he was responding to, you can see that the point of the conversation was not to assert that the English common law was no longer in force--rather, the opposite. The English common law--"unwritten law"--could be altered by specific written laws, and the state governments had been doing so. But it's clear to both men that the intent of the Convention was for English common law to be retained in its rights and benefits as well as its restrictions, except where explicitly altered by the states. Independence did not leave us in a "state of nature."
1. Letters Patent to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 1578.
2. Sir Walter Raleigh’s Charter, 1584.
3. The Charter of Acadia, 1603.
4. Virginia Charter, 1606.
5. Virginia Charter, 1609.
6. Virginia Charter, 1611-1612.
7. Mayflower Compact, 1620.
8. New England Charter, 1620.
9. Ordinance for Virginia, 1621.
10. Charter, Dutch West India Company, 1621.
11. Grant of New Hampshire, 1629.
12. Massachusetts Charter, 1629.
13. Dutch Charter of Privileges to Patroons, 1629.
14. Charter of Plymouth to William Bradford, 1629.
15. Maryland Charter, 1632.
16. Cambridge Agreement, 1632. (Massachusetts)
17. Dorchester Agreement, 1633. (Massachusetts)
18. Salem “Agreement,” 1634. (Massachusetts)
19. Watertown Agreement, 1634. (Massachusetts)
20. Grant of New Hampshire, 1635.
21. Pilgrim “Code of Law,” 1636.
22. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639.
23. New Haven Fundamentals, 1639.
24. Grant of Maine, 1639.
25. Government of Providence, 1639. (Rhode Island)
26. Government of Newport, 1639. (Rhode Island)
27. Government of Pocasset, 1639 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island)
28. Maryland Act, 1639.
29. Agreement of Settlers at Exeter, 1639. (New Hampshire)
30. Dover Combination, 1639. (New Hampshire)
31. Bradford’s surrender of his patent of Plymouth to the freemen,1640.
32. Agreement at Providence, 1640. (Rhode Island)
33. Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641.
34. Piscataqua River Government, 1641. (New Hampshire)
35. Government of Rhode Island, 1641.
36. New Haven “Fundamentals,” 1643. (revision of 1639)
37. Patent for Providence Plantations, 1643.
38. Acts and Orders of 1647 (Agreement between Providence,
Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport in forming a common
assembly).
39. Wells, Gorgiana, and Piscataqua form independent governments, 1649. (Maine)
40. Puritan “Laws and Liberties,” 1658.
41. Connecticut Charter, 1662.
42. Charter of Carolina, 1663.
43. A Declaration and Proposals of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina, 1665.
44. Rhode Island Charter, 1663.
45. Grant to the Duke of York, 1664.
46. Concessions and Agreement (East Jersey), “Nova Caesarea,”1664.
47. Royal Grant to the Province of Maine, 1664.
48. Concessions of East Jersey, 1665.
49. Concessions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina, 1665.
50. Charter of Carolina, 1665.
51. Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, 1669.
52. Declaration of the Lords Proprietors (Jersey), 1672.
53. Grant to Sir George Carteret (New Jersey), 1674.
54. Grant to the Duke of York, 1674.
55. Royal Grant to the Province of Maine, 1674.
56. Privileges granted by Dutch to citizens of Delaware, 1673.
57. Charter of Fundamentals of West New Jersey, 1676.
58. Charles II’s grant of New England to the Duke of York, 1676.
59. Concessions of West Jersey, 1677.
60. Commission for New Hampshire, 1680. (Commission of John
Cutt)
61. Duke of York’s second grant to Penn and others, 1680.
62. Pennsylvania Charter, 1681.
63. “Fundamentals” of West New Jersey, 1681.
64. Concessions to the Province of Pennsylvania, 1681.
65. Pennsylvania Frame of 1682.
66. Penn’s Charter of Liberties, 1682. .
67. New York “Charter of Liberties and Privileges,” 1683.
68. Pennsylvania Frame, 1683 (Revision of 1682).
69. Fundamental Constitutions, East New Jersey, 1683.
70. Commission of Andros, 1688.
71. Massachusetts Charter, 1691.
72. New York “Charter and Privileges of the Majesty’s Subjects,1691.”
73. Pennsylvania Frame, 1696 (Revision of 1683).
74. Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, 1701.
75. Charter of Delaware, 1701.
76. Explanatory Massachusetts Charter, 1725.
77. Georgia Charter, 1732