Aimee wrote quoting Jim:
If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?
You gnaw at a branch and call it a root. You have common law (the law of common men, lex communis), and legislative law (bringing the law of the sovereign). Common law precedent is an aggregate body of knowledge consisting not only decisions, but of logical constructs -- a way of approaching and framing legal thought. Common law has never been codified in a document, it's a body of relational knowledge. The Constitution is not the primary authority, because constitutions (legislative law) are not the root of what you see as law. Indeed, the US Const. finds root in common law and common right.
Lex est ab eterno.
Correct, to which I would add: "Precedent" is a word of art. It means the decision of an appellate court to which lower courts must defer. The Constitution can no more be a "precedent" that it can be a banana. S a n d y