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.
Right. So how is that different than a justice looking at the phrasing of, say, the Australian constitution (a document that was based in large part on the US constitution) for the interpretation of similar language, like due process?
If your answer is that the Australian constitution was written in 1900, and thus the US Constitution wasn't based on it, I think it's hard to make that argument, because the founders clearly rejected a MAJOR premise of the common law when drafting the constitution; that is, that parliament can override the common law. I don't think you can compare the common law to the constitution because the common law wasn't binding on parliament; the constitution is.
The British common law of free press at the time of the adoption of the constitution meant that you didn't have to get a license from the government to print your newspaper. The government can and did punish for printing certain things. But I think it's pretty clear that the founders, with the first amendment, intended to protect against more than just licensing--indeed; the uproar surrounding the Sedition Act of 1798 indicates this.
Again, I don't have a problem with Scalia citing foreign sources. But then again, I don't have a problem with consideration of foreign sources at all. I think it's legitimate to look at how others deal with problems. I don't think we should go through life with blinders on just because we didn't think up an idea. I think the problem comes in when people begin to rely on foreign law as somehow binding.
That's exactly right. He believes the text today should mean what it meant when it was written. Old English law is the source of most important words and phrases in our Constitution, so that's the place Scalia looks when he wants to know what the words in the Constitution are supposed to mean.