"Not really the same thing, is it? English common law is within our legal tradition, whereas German or French or Japanese or Islamic law is not."
I watched a forum on Cspan with Scalia and Breyer, on this very topic. (using International Law for US cases)
I am merely saying that our saystem looks OUTSIDE the Constitution, for guidance in Interpreting vague situations. I cited English Common Law as an example of how our system relies on Precedents.
Look, I'm not a lawyer. I merely accept this isn't a totally clear-cut situation. Listening to Scalia and Breyer, it was clear it might come up from time to time.
I guess the other side of the coin is: If given a speeding ticket on the Interstate, tell the judge there are no speed limits, on parts of the German Autobahn!!
Then take it to the Supreme Court.
If it be of any consolation, you are not alone. Contrary to popular opinion and the prevailing conventional wisdom, the framers were not as explicitly unambiguous as some people (of goodwill) would have us believe. :-)
"Listening to Scalia and Breyer, it was clear it might come up from time to time."
How odd that it was Scalia defending/explaining the practice, who in this case in his dissent blasted the other Justices for doing just that: relying on international/foreign law and "customs."