That’s utter nonsense. Our legal system is based on English common law. We imported countless concepts from the English common law into our own system. Sure there are significant ways in which our constitutional system of government differed and differs from theirs, but those are the exceptions that prove the general rule that we inherited the English common law system and continue to use it to this day.
No not at all. We only look outside our Constitution to determine definitions of phrases in the Constitution that are ambiguous.
We are a Republic based on the concept of the sovereignty of the individuals comprising it, and not the opinions of some long dead guys. We make our own way or we are wholly owned by the peoples and the concepts of the past.
You seem to imply we are not really sovereign individuals, since this concept is simply one in a long line of evolutionary developments pertaining to the very concept of the individual it`s self.
Ok, then where do we halt that evolution in the concept of the individual? English Common Law? Based on what 'divine' or 'privileged' status? Please explain what the hell makes them so 'magical' that we surrender the very concept of individual sovereign right to change or alter our own destiny?