[Nero Germanicus]

“I don’t believe in the fallacy of popularity. I also don’t believe in the fallacy of false authority. I am not a courtier, I don’t feel a need to force my opinion to coincide with that of the powers that be.”

You have the wrong “P” word. Its not “popularity” that matters in the least, its “precedent.” And there is nothing the least bit “false” about the authority of the legislative and judicial branches to interpret and implement the provisions of the Constitution. That’s the way our system works.

Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.”
Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).

[DiogenesLamp]

You have the wrong “P” word. Its not “popularity” that matters in the least, its “precedent.”

In my vocabulary "Precedent" is an obscene word. It means not having to think for yourself. It means that mistakes get amplified because subsequent minds merely accept what previous minds thought, rather than working through the permutations themselves.

Wong Kim Ark is now the precedent for "Anchor Babies", and only a fool would believe that Congress wanted people sneaking across the border in violation of our law, and being gifted with American citizenship, something LEGAL immigrants have to work for and show cause.

This is why I have no respect for the Legal system's methodology. It invites mistake, and then compounds the problem by enforcing those same mistakes on subsequent iterations.

And there is nothing the least bit “false” about the authority of the legislative and judicial branches to interpret and implement the provisions of the Constitution.

I am not saying their POWER is false, I'm saying their understanding and KNOWLEDGE are false. You are looking at the wrong usage of the word "Authority." In the context of the "False Authority" fallacy, it means someone who has no actual knowledge whereof they speak. Yes, they have power, but they are IGNORANT, and determined to remain that way because of PRECEDENT. The standard legal excuse for not thinking for yourself.

To be fair, "Precedent is actually *TWO* fallacies. It is both the fallacy of false authority, and it is also the fallacy of "tu qouque." (You also.) It means you'll do one case a certain way, because a similar case was done that way previously. It's basically a "If Johnny only got 20 spats, I should only get 20 spats. It's only fair." That is the "tu quoque" aspect.

Neither aspect of Precedent corrects errors, in fact, it contributes to errors.

That’s the way our system works.

Another way of saying "We have always done things that way. "

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.”

This concept can be greatly simplified by use of the word "Ruts."