[general_re]

If that's the subject you wish to discuss, perhaps you should start a new thread. As a matter for this thread, you claim that the principle of stare decisis is false and the authority wrong by examining the evidence, namely the Constitution. However, you have not undertaken such an examination of the evidence in the case of scientists, to determine if they are also wrong - you merely claim that they are, and then incorrectly label them as not authoritative based on your unsupported declaration. Thus, the two cases are not comparable, and you have therefore committed the inductive fallacy of false analogy, and your argument is therefore unsound and not worthy of further discussion.

[Wallace T.]

In bringing up the issue of stare decisis, I did not argue why this position is wrong. There are many others who have done so. Likewise, there are others who have argued against evolution or at least random, unguided evolution. You are incorrect when you presume that I have not examined the evidence of mainstream scientists. I have also examined the position of mainstream Constitutional scholarship, FWIW. You have thus made an unsupported statement, as you accuse me of doing. As an evangelical Christian, I am compelled to reject naturalism, the philosophy that underlies mainstream science.

Here I stand. I can do no other.