Courts drafting a new constitutional doctrine sometimes cite decisions from other countries. Critics object that foreign judgments lack domestic democratic authority; proponents reply that similar legal problems can illuminate overlooked consequences. Neither proposition makes foreign precedent binding or worthless. A court should use comparative decisions as tested arguments whose reasoning must fit domestic text and institutions, and it should disclose why particular jurisdictions are relevant rather than collect only examples that support a preferred outcome. Which choice most precisely identifies the constitutional topic, the legitimacy question, and the author's governing view?