A point that seems lost on NBC'ers: the colonists did not fight the Revolutionary war because they didn't like English common law - they fought because England refused the colonists the rights of English common law. See what Samuel Adams had to say, among many others.
Where do you think "no taxation without representation!" came from? The colonists revolted against the monarchy because it was not according them their common law rights. Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?
We Objected to not having representation regarding decisions which affected us, such as taxation, but not limited to just that. Under the Law of England, we had no recourse, We must comply with the directives of the King and Parliament. We therefore had to BREAK the law to gain the right to rule ourselves. (Something which had never been done before.)
In the breaking of it, we necessarily had to break with every aspect of it which was derived from the divine right of Kings, among which was that a man could claim you as a subject because you happened to be born on his property.
Where do you think "no taxation without representation!" came from? The colonists revolted against the monarchy because it was not according them their common law rights.
It was the RIGHTS under the common law which we wanted, not the common law itself, and we discovered that these RIGHTS could better be protected through the exclusion of the Monarchy. It isn't the common law we wished, it was the rights guaranteed by it that was our desire. Now we guarantee them with our own laws.
Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?
Yes, all our legal habits and procedures as developed in the English Courts were adopted except where they were later modified by practice or statute. But this did not constitute an acceptance of common law ideas which were in conflict with the character of our new nation. Need I remind you of what James Madison said of the common law?
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] 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. [Virginia] 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. 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.
That's the most absurd thing you have said thus far. It was because of feudal “subjectship” that they were forced to pay undue taxes without representation in the fist place. But alas, the founders were very well educated in English history and what was brought naturally since ancient times and what came by the king's pejorative.
Clark's (Oxford, England) Discourse on political & social dynamics: “In the Savoy”, 1738; “State Trials, Vol 2”, London 1809 & Clive Perry, “British Nationality”, London 1951
“English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects”
And finally, St George Tucker reiterates that English common law was not the common law of the colonies
From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
But getting back to “subjct to the jurisdiction, I located the case discussing it in regards to citizenship. I was wrong, it is a fairly new case that I believe Leo brought to our attention
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (”this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”); see also Richard A. Posner, Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case. W. Res. L. Rev. 179 (1989).
Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
Adding the word "natural" before born wou;d have created a redunancy in the law which is why it simply was not needed to be added. However, it is the misinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" that has caused absurd results that are destroying our nation from within.
James Story Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application
IOW, one must look to how the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution. One being the increase in citizenry controlled by Congress via A1S8C4 and the other increase comes naturally through the already exsting citizenry via A2S1C5. Two paths, one made by man, the other by nature.