Over at PrawfsBlawg, there is an interesting discussion on what role decisions from foreign jurisdictions should have in aiding the interpretation of our constitutions. The question posed in the lead post is why we tend to get upset about citation to decisions from foreign countries when appellate courts look for assistance in interpreting the US Constitution, yet we do not even raise the question when state courts look to the decisions of other states to interpret their state constitution.
Here is my contribution to the discussion:
It often makes sense for states to look to the constitutions of other states — often the state constitutions were copied from each other (California’s original constitution borrowed heavily from New York). It does not make much sense for states to look to cases interpreting the federal constitution, however, since the two levels of constitution are so very different (the federal being a grant of power and the state being a limit on power, to name just one significant difference).
That difference between state and federal constitutions, however, pales in comparison to the difference between the US Constitution and the constitution of another country. The constitution is a product of the political history of the people. To make the foreign constitution at all relevant (none of them pre-date the US Constitution), you would at least need to show some relevant parallels in the political history.
This is an important topic. Appellate advocates should pay attention to how their courts use decisions from other courts and other jurisdictions.