The analysis and discussion at Confrimthem is pretty good. The question can be construed as "Between a Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution, which has superior force?"
The answer depends on how one sees the Supreme Court precedent as being in conformity with the Constitution, and the extent of force the precedent retains - but if there is a difference between precedent and the Constitution, and the precedent is toady an active force in law, most people will say the Constitution prevails.
The Constitution is "The law of the Land" and is inviolate. Courts however can and do screw up and therefor SCOTUS must overrule "stare decisis" when they do.
Even if the precedent coincides with the earliest years?
Further, you would want to paint yourself into a corner in the event a future opinion would hinge on that? It would seem to me the smart person would avoid limiting himself in this venue and reserve those issues for actual opinions in actual cases.
Only the short sighted reactionary would fall into the trap of limiting future options.