[Sabertooth]

There's no way to know, since the Texas Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on questions regarding the US Constitution.

Sure we can know. Stare decisis comes into play all the time, not just where the US Constitution is involved.

But jurists give heavy weight to settled law, which they must.

"Heavy," or "absolute?"

Every case can't be a case of first impression, and I don't think Marbury v. Madison is likely to be overturned, despite its judicial activist ruling.

Then, by this principle, what you end up with are three branches of government, ever winking and nudging, as they leverage their way to ever more federal power. Power once ceded to the FedGov is inviolate.

That's the danger of allowing stare decisis to trump the Constitution...
and that is a doctrine not found in the Constitution.

[Dog Gone]

There's a lot not found in the Constitution, but stare decisis preceded the writing of the Constitution, and its existence was no secret. Without the concept, there would be no such thing as settled law, and no need for the court to issue an opinion explaining its ruling. It could simply rule for the plaintiff or defendant, and go to lunch.

The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself, but it obviously has done so in the past. In those cases, stare decisis clearly was not absolute. Nor should it be. But it's not something which is done flippantly, either.