This is a preposterous assertion, devoid of any basis in the letter of the U.S. Constitution or the case law. The common law "heritage" is fundamental to our jurisprudence, including the interpretation of the Constitution by the federal courts since shortly after the document's adoption, as well as of the statutes enacted by Congress.
Chris, you were the one who stated :"... Fundamentally, the modern "originalist" doctrine is an attempt to
abrogate our common law heritage."
The idea that the constitution tried to do away the common law is not true. What it did was incorporate common law into a written constitution to memorialize, protect and preserve it for future generations. It added methods of governming to protect people and States and lessen the chance of an all-powerful central government. Arguing like you do for what people like to call a "living constitution" is just looking for a way to ignore what the constitution says. You wish to create public policies beyond the confines of the constitution. I believe we should follow what the document says as politicians are sworn to uphold and protect so important did our founder consider the consitution.
What we're both arguing is the familiar dispute as to whether the constitution should be re-interpreted as we go along as you wish or interpreted in its original form as I believe it should be.
This argument has been going on a long time. Both sides have their views but I don't think we'll resolve it here in a thread about a virus.