Replies

The Founders quoted foreign sources at the time the Constitution was drawn up and ratified. Tell the whole truth.

If Scalia quotes a newer foreign source, it would be referenced back through a line of legal or philosophical reasoning at the time of founding -- that is it would be a strongly derivative commentary upon the very sources the Founder's used. IMO.

The Founders quoted foreign sources at the time the Constitution was drawn up and ratified. Tell the whole truth.

It is common knowledge that the founders used foreign sources, English common law, the Mosaic law, Hammurabi, et al to contruct the document known as the US Constitution.

That has nothing to do with interpreting the document as is unless a phrase in the document derives directly from one of the same. Judges must interpret the Constitution as written with an eye toward the intent when written.

What the Europeans at large do or don't do is inapposite to the interpretation of our Constitution.

I never said anything different than what you said. Scalia quotes foreign law--British law--and at the time of the founding, America threw off the yoke of British "oppression" and along with it, evidently, the law associated with it.

If it wasn't clear before, it's been VERY clear, at least since the the English Civil War and then January 30, 1649, that Britain has parliamentary supremacy. Such a concept was never fathomed in the United States in any way, shape, or form. Britain doesn't have a written constitution like ours. It's different.

For instance, Britain's common law forbids ex post facto laws--but no one doubts the ability of Parliament to override the common law, and Britain has, on several occasions, (not the least of which in the past five years or so) has passed ex post facto laws. But our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws.

Our constitution didn't say that we adopt the British common law. In fact, it pretty much rejected that notion, at least as far as the constitution was concerned. If you want to say that looking at foreign sources is bas when interpreting the constitution (something I don't agree with), then the argument should apply with equal force to British law as any other law.