While the Heritage Foundation is among the same big interests that put humanity in our current state around the world, they have accurately identified the criteria of the republican form of government: popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and freedom. However, the Supreme Court maintains a defective "precedent" that creates an imbalance between these legal principles to open the door to the very "majority tyranny" it is designed to stop!
What is due process? What is judicial power? Did you know that many State constitutions guarantee unalienable rights to “alter or reform the constitution or reform of government” as certain public conditions require? Do judges have the power to modify or ignore due process: to interpret red as blue? If we have been tricked to believe that the judicial power to interpret words stands above the actual meaning of those words in the law, what else can judges wrongly get away with in a highly outdated and confused, precedent-based system? Does the word “ambiguous” in fact have a finite meaning? Do we have the rule of law, or the rule of judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, politics, and the elite?
Many States give the people the right to "enjoy and defend life and liberty, acquire, possess, and protect property, and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy." These fundamental rights are so important that they are sometimes the first enumerated provision in many State constitutions: the first law on the State statute book whatsoever! The broad scope of our natural rights is then distributed by exception mechanisms like due process.
However, precedent throughout the union has overturned these fundamental rights by interpreting/judging the words on the books as "nonstatutory gifts from god.” Nothing in the constitution permits modification or omission of the most critical rights that make up 90%+ of law if they in fact are written on the books. The definition of a law is a written course of action: sources of official authority to be used as evidence in a case based on how the language correlates with the circumstances. Every law and contract is a set of interests entitling a legal representative the power to fulfil the obligations contained in the language by fair trial, and each obligation is further broken down into powers, rights, and duties.
The in-practice rule of English Common Law is supposed to establish precedential standards for "reliance interest" circumstances that fall under the meaning of a given law in question, not “acquire meaning” in whole. The plain meaning rule would cover one aspect of strict construction if not for the federal statute cited in the first subchapter, described in more detail in the next subchapter. The golden and mischief rules prohibit judges from applying plain meanings of law that are harmful, undue, unfair, defective, arbitrary, or absurd.
“Standing in court” is commonly known to be constituted of injury, causality, and redressability. However, professional wrongdoers break down redressability to create another imbalance between these legal interests by wrongly using smaller functions of “replication, paramountcy, prerogative, and liability.” Legal prohibitions give plaintiffs an interest to seek relief in court while legal enablement provides defenses: constitutional defenses are intended to overturn bad legal interests, not the other way around. How better to rewrite a law than systematically through cases that “interpret” the opposite? If a court is capable of putting a party into possession of the object of a claim, redress of the degree of interests at cause cannot be denied or disparaged.
Bad precedent can self-perpetuate whenever secondary-source judicial rulings are taken more seriously than primary-source written laws. Early childhood educators who are helplessly handed their "social studies introductory" materials have been wrongly teaching that appellate jurisdiction did not exist before Marbury v. Madison (1803). Students are then tested on this false narrative in refresher courses over the span of their education. The idea that all court review powers or any legal authority whatsoever may be independently derived from precedent alone has been wrongly, unconstitutionally “telephoning” in our education system and courts for many generations, in perpetuation.
If the scope of a law is limited to the cases successfully brought under it, how would new cases for unestablished laws possibly be made?! What happens when the Supreme Court makes mistakes? Who believes the constitution says judicial errors shall become law after three strikes or whatever? How dangerous is that?! The psychology 101 behind the kind of “labcoat professionalism” to cause law students to ignore written laws of the land in favor of pure judicial power and statically unconstitutional statutes is explainable. The value of secondary sources is only as good as the analysis of the primary source contained therein. Law students go to law school to learn the secrets made readily available to them, but they are also being taught to perpetuate the paradoxes in bad case law and other trade secrets that they either become unaware of or complicit to.
An absurdly small level of detail in the field is necessary to see through many of these norms we were taught since early on in life. The widespread assumption about the binding nature of case law compared to the laws they are sourced from [or not] can usually be shattered when one is reminded of the possibility of a swing court that credibly finds a past court to have made a mistake. Instead, rookie lawyers can be pushed around with the notion that precedent is the law of the land: that case law works on a first-come-first-serve basis, and acquired meanings throughout time become the law itself. How exactly does “overturning a case law” work if cases can include a mix of conflicting, inauthentic, and severable information? The law of the case is simply not the law of the land!
We can see through the foolishness of this “original" "construction” interpretation of precedent when applied to broad language like that in our constitutional rights. The nature of our secondary-source education on case law has taught everyday Americans working from elementary memory to repeat something to the effect of "precedent becomes the law and whatever the law actually says does not matter." Too many people have been wrongly taught to cite "precedent" or illegal laws as a justification for government to inflame our hardships in everyday life. How crazy is that?!? The way we are taught about acquired meaning characterizes how boundless judicial power has replaced the rule of law itself. A judge has the power to protect circumstances that are founded in the precise meaning of identified words in the law, clearly not to “make law.”
The facts are simple: if primary-source written law says one thing, and secondary-source precedent on the same subject matter says something that conflicts with written law, the “holy” cases are overruled. Article IV clearly says that the law of the case is not the law of the land. Judicial power does not constitute the consent of the governed in whole, especially if the full force of popular sovereignty is only a percentage of what does constitute the social contract of our constitution. The static worldview of courtroom precedent constitutes a series of trade secrets that are systematically used by professionals to persuade injured parties to believe that they do not have rights.
Comentarios