Stephan asks an important question, “Why should the Constitution require a genius to interpret it?” I think the crux of the statist answer comes from the legal concept of stare decisis, which is “to stand by things decided”, aka precedent. When the requirement of stare decisis is thrown into the mix along with the Constitution, it becomes exponentially more difficult to decide on such cases as each incremental precedent is decided. Weaving through the labyrinth of established Federal precedents takes a smarter mind than just reading what the Constitution actually enumerates. Based on the assumption of the constitutional validity of stare decisis, the statists all will find fault with jurists who don’t have LSAT scores above 170, nor the necessary statist legal indoctrination at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, etc, nor the necessary Supreme Court clerkship. In all three of these instances it takes a mind of a near genius to accomplish these feats. As Hayek has taught us well, the Leviathan gains great strength through immense complexity and the mass dependence on highly intelligent experts. Just as war is the health of the leviathan state, stare decisis on a national/federal level is its water.

So now my question to our legal experts like Stephan and Professor Shaffer: on a Federal level is the concept of stare decisis valid under this Constitution of enumerated powers? The obvious answer would seem to be no, especially for us humble layman. It would seem that under the Federal Constitution that it is a power that may be reserved for the States and local jurisdictions but not the Federal.In fact it would make sense that this legal concept be applied at the more local levels where precedent takes into account local norms and customs. It also seems obvious that when stare decisis is applied nationally the results are monstrous subverting important and more decentralized precedents of what the statists call the “lower” courts of the State and local jurisdictions.

Which leads me to a digression, I think it is incorrect to look at the State and local courts as “lower” jurisdictions in relation to the Federal. It is more appropriate to view the State and local courts as jurisdictions that are different from the Federal jurisdiction. With this view it is proper to see the Federal Supreme Court as supreme only in matters Federal, and not as supreme to the valid jurisdicitons of the State and local authorities under the Constitution.

The Best of Casey Khan