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.
Wrong. We are referring to a law which is designed to grant rights based on birth in a country. The rights of “subject” or “citizen” were much greater than the rights of an alien. Again, your theory is bizarre.
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation,
Your contention, as you sometimes contend that those who you disagree with were “ignorant” or “silly bastards.” Rather, there was disagreement about this, among many, some championing the right of expatriation in any situation, others who agreed that with the Revolution, inhabitants were free to choose American or England, but that in other circumstances it took mutual consent for expatriation. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists opposed expatriation from a nation, while Jefferson felt it was any man’s right. John Marshall was known to look favorably on “perpetual allegiance.” From Inglees v. Snug Harbor
He continued to reside in New Jersey after the passage of this law and until sometime in the year 1777, thereby making his election to become a member of the new government, and the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.Marshall, it may be noted, did not absolutely pronounce, reflecting the disagreements of the age in the absence of definitive law. In Murray v Charming Betsey he said
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.,Joseph Story in Shanks v Dupont
The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.This was a topic of debate, only finally settled with the Expatriation law. The Founders and early American legal thinkers did not conflate the doctrine of perpetual allegiance with jus soli the way your bizarre theory does.
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
Had England given the colonists all the common law rights, it’s possible (though not what I would have wanted) that the Revolution would not have occurred. You are absolutely correct that we wanted common law rights - which happened to be guaranteed by common law. Much of which was specifically incorporated into our Contsitution. Do you think the Founders incorporated so much common law because they hated common law?
" 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?"
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?
I notice the initial sentence left off. I’m adding it
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 [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. [quotation shortened]Puts a slightly different complexion on it, doesn’t it? George Mason was worried there weren’t sufficient protection that those common law guarantees not changed by statute would continue. Madison obviously thinks they will despite not being specifically mentioned. You will also note that this letter is dated 1787, and that the Bill of Rights – guaranteeing many common law rights – was enacted in 1791.
Again, do you consider Justice Scalia ignorant? He has said he refers to the English common law of the time of the founders.