[Dog Gone]

Is Gonzales' constructionism strict enough that he believes the Constitution trumps stare decisis?

There's no way to know, since the Texas Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on questions regarding the US Constitution. But jurists give heavy weight to settled law, which they must. 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.

[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.