I agree, but Scalia still cites to British law when determining constitutional issues.
My point of all this is that citing to foreign law isn't the horror that people make it out to be. Should it be binding? No. Should it be considered? Sure.
Not quite true. Scalia only cites to English common law when the phrasing in the Constitution derives from same, ie: due process.
Big difference.
He does like Blackstone though, I'll give you that. But he doesn't consider the mores of other nations whne interpreting the Constitution. That is the crux of the matter.
Scalia cites to English common law extant as of the date the US declared its independence, because that common law was carried forward by the new American nation. In a word, it became American common law.