[sometime lurker]

Summarized for you:" every rule and statute that was founded on monarchy, or that was inconsistent with democracy, was no longer valid in the United States." That was common law and why natural law was what the FF used, right?

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 Tucker was arguing about whether a Federal "common law" existed that superseded the rights of states.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, it’s 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?

[philman_36]

Go see what Justice Scalia says about common law.
How about you show me or give a link to what you want me to see on what Scalia says about common law. I might go looking for and respond back with something that you believe has no bearing on how you understand things to be.

Do you think matters of naturalization and natural born are not federal jurisdiction?
I know that Congress has been given power to establish rules of naturalization via article 1 section 8 clause 4.
I know that Congress can't legislate into existence a natural born citizen.

Not expressly given in the Constitution?
Since you didn't join this question into the other, as I believe you intended to do yet didn't, and left it as a separate question I can't answer that question.