There is no spin. The "Our nation is based on English Principles of Law" theory collides with the reality of the fact that it was a direct contradiction of English law for us to even exist. That there was nothing like what we did anywhere in English law is also readily apparent. That the precedent and philosophy for it is only realized in Swiss experience and Principles is also non arguable.
The only reason we have been saddled with this Stupid English Feudal Land-Bondage theory is because of British Law trained Lawyers like Rawle coming after the fact and misleading people as to our birthright.
But the intent of our Federal Founders it was not.
England had at least two revolutions in the 17th century, and when our revolution started the colonists were claiming the rights of Englishmen, not independence from the crown. The United Kingdom at various times had been something of a confederation, as the name suggests. Scotland had an independent parliament until 1707, Ireland until 1801.
To be sure Switzerland was an example of a confederation of republics, and the founders knew of it. But it was more like a looser confederation of independent cantons when they were around. A federated republic like our own was slow to develop. John Adams certainly did study the Swiss cantonal republics, but the founders also had the example of Ancient Greek and Renaissance Italian republics to draw on.
I'm not sure about the details of Swiss history, but reverence for English common law went deep in the colonies and later in the new nation. Common law was something that evolved over time through cases. Thus it wasn't as statist as Continental civil law. The founders were largely trained in the common law and built their case against Parliament and later the king in the tradition of common law principles.
Saying we used English common law for the language of our own law, or using it, as Scalia did last year, it NOT the same as saying we are still English subjects.
But anyone who thinks we are more Swiss than English in our heritage and ideas is....well, stupid.
Just as is someone who says if one case is overturned, then all cases were wrongly decided. Over a hundred Supreme Court cases have been overturned. Do you know why? Would you care to explain why the US Supreme Court sometimes reverses previous decisions? Perhaps you can research Swiss law, and tell me the answer.