Yes and that has f***all to do with the matter at hand. Precedent is used all of the time when the Supreme Court hears cases. Precedent is the "meat" lawyers make a living on.
"Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?"
I'll Refer you to the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Constitution by way of the 2nd Amendment gives the States the ability to have a well Regulated Militia for self defense(That was how Militias were formed by States and Towns) So your example would be in error.
>>”Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?”
>
>I’ll Refer you to the 2nd Amendment:
> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
>
>The Constitution by way of the 2nd Amendment gives the States the ability to have a well Regulated Militia for self defense(That was how Militias were formed by States and Towns) So your example would be in error.
If the 2nd Amendment gives the States the rights to form militias, then how does it also recognize the people as having the right to keep and bear arms?
A rephrase of the 2nd could be: “Whereas a militia is necessary to the security and freedom of a State, the people’s right to own, carry, and use arms shall not be impugned.”
That, in itself, certainly does NOT give the States the ability to form militias... though it does affirm that the *PEOPLE* can, and that for that reason the entire right to keep and bear arms should not be impaired.
>>“Precedent” and Constitutional Law are two VERY different beasts.”
>
>Yes and that has f***all to do with the matter at hand. Precedent is used all of the time when the Supreme Court hears cases. Precedent is the “meat” lawyers make a living on.
And that is exactly *WHY* is is so horrid: it is the elevation of ‘tradition’ {what we’ve done before} above that which the law ACTUALLY SAYS.
Once ‘Tradition’ is acknowledged as even being equal [to the Law] it actually assumes a form of supremacy: the judges/lawyers can keep the cycle going until violations of tradition are just as serious as crimes.