[1L]

Most lawyers think that case law takes precendent over the law itself and most haven't a damn clue what our nation was founded under and most could care less.

First of all, case law IS "the law." Your alleged point here notes an ignorance of what case law and "the law" is. Second, as a lawyer who's done a significant amount of research on our nation's founding, particularly first amendment related, I will be happy to debate you and see which one of us has a "damn clue."

[goldilucky]

According to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor case law does not supercede the law itself. There lies the issue of Stare Decisis that has a sounder meaning of what the real law was intended to be. Boilerplate case law has proven to be inconsistent to what the previous established statutory law was intended to be.

In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:

“Remaining true to an ‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases better serves the values of Stare Decisis than would following a more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it; the latter course would simply compound the recent error, and would likely make the unjustified break from previously established doctrine complete. In such a situation, ‘special justification’ exists to depart from the recently decided case.”

And referencing another case:

In Consumer Products Safety v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, the Supreme Court said:

“We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the language must be regarded as conclusive.”

[goldilucky]

"Case" law is based on false impressions that judges and other intergovernmental agencies use rather than applying the statutory law that does apply. For example, if the DOJ believes that filing a tax return is "mandatory" why don't they cite the statute section that says directly so? What has been happening is that the DOJ uses U.S. v Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, thus falsely forcing individuals to file returns under duress who do not meet the "requisite statutory definition" to file in the first place.