Replies

while you're working up the strangth to actually read the entire Madison speech, here's some other reading that throws an earlier post of your off the rails

St. George Tucker (from his works: Tucker's Blackstone)

by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

Reread your Tucker quote, and then read the entire essay. The portion you quoted is under the heading "3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics." So it is about which laws were abrogated and which were not. It appears you would like to read it as saying they all were, but that's not what it says. What it actually says, simplified:

by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished...

meaning that laws which bound the colonies to England and the sovereign were abolished, as were all royal perogatives. No surprise on any of this. To continue

... and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

Summarized for you: every rule and statute that was founded on monarchy, or that was inconsistent with democracy, was no longer valid in the United States. Of course, if you read the next sentence

This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments...

it is all very obvious. This is the same essay another poster tried to use just a small piece of without reading the whole thing. See post #345, for the answer to that.

I think this part needs to be emphasized in the context of this discussion. From St. George Tucker:

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively