[Ghoulish Delight]

I can't agree entirely with that.

Firstly, I think the Constitution was left purposely vague so as to allow for its interpretation to evolve with time. Reviews of the various correspondance between the framers have revealed time and again much more precise and restrictive language being traded in private, almost all of which became vague and open to interpretation by the time it was integrated into the actual document. I think that was on purpose. After all, if we go strictly by what's in the document, and what was strictly meant by the terms they used, only white, male property owners would be guaranteed any rights at all. Certainly that was their initial intent, however, fortunately, they were smart enough to realize that their initial intent was clouded by the context of their own times and created a document that allowed us to expand its protection as our collective conscience grew.

As for looking to foreign law, I can't concede that it's entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is not all-encompassing. The Court has to make rulings on issues that are so drastically new and different than anything the original framers could possibly have imagined that not every answer can be contained within that document. While the intent and wording of the Constitution should certainly always be the first stop for a decission, when the simple ideals expressed their fail to provide enough guidance to decide and (especially) codify more complex issues, it pays to see what others in the world have done. An international dialog between the our Constitution and others is no threat to the document. When blazing new Constitutional territory, it pays to see the results of past attempts, even internationally, to help clarify the issue. It's not threat to our own Constitution to have a dialog with the world, as long as the results of that dialog are subsequently checked agains the Constitution.