Go see what Justice Scalia says about common law. Much of common law was to guarantee the rights of Englishman. That which guarantees rights could scarcely be described as inconsistent with democracy. Tucker was arguing about whether a Federal "common law" existed that superseded the rights of states. He did not claim that there was no reference to common law in the United States. If you go back to my post #345, you'll see that Tucker said
That is to say, its maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature, the cognizance whereof is by the constitution vested in the federal courts; it may govern and direct the course of proceeding, in such cases, but cannot give jurisdiction in any case, where jurisdiction is not expressly given by the constitution.Do you think matters of naturalization and natural born are not federal jurisdiction? Not expressly given in the Constitution?