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?
Mason was complaining that we failed to adopt protections which existed under the common law, not that we failed to adopt the common law itself. You do know he is considered the father of the "bill of rights."
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.
I think you said this as well as I could have. That you can't seem to apply it to feudal based notion of bondage to the Lord of the Soil is beyond me. It is strictly rejected as an American Principle.