Bad precedent is still bad.
"up until this point, I have been discussing what the law is"
Oh I'm fully aware that there have been words written down by judges that support your view.
But judges are neither the sole nor final arbiters of the law or the constitution, so I cannot agree that that is what the law is. It is merely a long-standing usurpation.
But judges are neither the sole nor final arbiters of the law or the constitution, so I cannot agree that that is what the law is. It is merely a long-standing usurpation.
No, I agree - the people are the final arbiters of the law and the Constitution. However, that hardly gives you much cover, since the people seem quite content with the general trend of constitutional interpretations produced by the courts. But, if you persuade enough people of the rightness of your position, then it will be so. The best way to do that might be to discuss how the law should be, rather than trying to persuade people that your interpretion represents the law as it is...