Find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis,
Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies,
Spirituality, Home Schooling, Home Mortgages and more, in:
If you believe, like I do, that all judges take an oath to the Constitution – rather than an oath to precedent - and their oath requires them to issue opinions based on the original, legal meaning of the Constitution –
then the doctrine of stare decisis is unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court disagrees.
Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.
As the majority put it in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs Casey, it is the practice of adhering to a prior decision “whether or not mistaken.”
After nearly 15 years of study, I haven't found a single instance of a founder ever saying that precedent trumps the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution remains supreme, even if the "Supreme Court" happens to disagree.
And no one takes an oath to precedent. They take an oath to the Constitution.
I covered this in an easy-to-share short video today. It's just over 3 minutes and perfect to pass around on social media.
We've got it posted on the establishment-favored sites, plus a number of alternative platforms that are growing steadily. I hope you'll find it interesting, educational, and worthy of sharing widely.
