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 … Continue reading Is Stare Decisis Constitutional?