Not if you follow the common law rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.
Those were used as a background, they don't override the Constitution, or add laws to it. They were used as a for a procedural framework; taking a lot of theories and concepts as well as procedure from them to form a new legal system in the US. Common law from Britan doesn't establish or create law in this country.
The rules of construction should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.
Only in issues of procedure or in clarifying a definition of a term used by the framers. the Framers own writing and the writings of the time are the primary sources for interpreting the constitution. the common law stuff is only for procedure, or clarification of what a certian term or phrase was ment to be. It doesn't establish laws.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of document by the framers and people of the time debating, breaking down and otherwise clarifying the understanding of the constituiton by the Framers and the general population at that time. From another message board I post on:
The terms used in the constitution were deliberated on at great length and are not ambiguous and undefined, the Framers knew what words they were using and why; they knew the definitons of the terms and language used, and had agreed on the final draft of the constitution with full knowledge of what it ment.
The states had to ratify the constitution and public support was needed, which was the mission of the Federalist papers. The Federal Farmers pamphlets were the opposite of the Federalist papers; a series of writings ment to stop the ratification of the constitution. The constitution was also examined and debated at great length in the public at large. What the constitution meant to the framers and the general population at that time is very easy to clarify, when the actual wording on the constitution isn't specific enough. There are literally hundereds if not thousands of document from this time debating the the constitution. These documents don't really debate the meaning of the constitution, but convied what the Framers ment in the constitution and it's provisions and then break down certian concepts and show the justification for, and application of the various parts of the constitution.
In addition to that, most of the delegates at the constitutional convention had personal diaries from the time discussing the different thoughts and debates in the process of drafting the constitution, as well as notes and written proposals from the delegates and major thinkers there. There were extensive notes of the convention as well.
As you can see there is an extensive paper trail to figure out what the constitution means. THAT is the primary source used for constitutional interpretation. Common law is only to clarify procedure or what a certian concept referred to in a primary source means.
Here is an interesting quote from Blackstone that helps clarify the idea of Natural Law that the Framers referred to and based this nation on. It also shows how religion is tied into our laws...
The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures…Upon these two foundations, the law off nature and law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict these
Again, read the opinion I cited. It was written by Scalia, who is much more of an expert in originalist and textualist constitutional interpretation then you or I could ever hope to be.