Judges and academics are divided as to whether the resolution of constitutional disputes must turn wholly on domestic inputs or if there is in fact any room in United States constitutional jurisprudence to learn from the experiences of other nations. Objections to the practice
premised upon the assertions that constitutional solutions should derive from purely domestic sources and that fundamental differences in constitutional systems will render attempts to transplant solutions ineffective. The purpose of this discussion is to show (1) that courts do in fact use comparative analysis in the interpretation of the Constitution, (2) that courts use foreign materials in three distinct manners and within a limited framework, and (3) that the framework dissuades the objections to the use of foreign materials by limiting the scope of the use and the impact of those foreign materials.
Mixed Signals: The Limited Role of Comparative Analysis in Constitutional Adjudication,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss1/6