OK.....fine...Judge Coldheat will codify it.
My decision is as follows.
The intent of the Natural Born language being national security, in that a foreign power may be inclined to exploit our new country, I see no sign of ill intent between a natural born American mother and a Cuban refugee father.
I therefore rule that natural born American status transferred from Mother to son at birth, no matter where the birth occurred.
Thus, Ted Cruz, the defendant in these proceeding, is a natural born American.
Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. Stare decisis is Latin for âto stand by things decided.â The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, and thus, reduces spending.
According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis âpromotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.â In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt. A benefit of this rigidity is that a court need not continuously reevaluate the legal underpinnings of past decisions and accepted doctrines. Moreover, proponents argue that the predictability afforded by the doctrine helps clarify constitutional rights for the public. Other commentators point out that courts and society only realize these benefits when decisions are published and made available. Thus, some scholars assert that stare decisis is harder to justify in cases involving secret opinions.
Despite the legal stability afforded by stare decisis, it is not without negative externalities. Critics argue that the doctrine occasionally permits erroneous decisions to continue influencing the law and encumbers the legal systemâs ability to quickly adapt to change.
Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an âinexorable command.â On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously.