On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
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.
It comes from 'precede' to 'come first or before' as in importance or scope of coverage (with respect to court authority). The Constitution is clearly superior in authority over any and all courts in America. Therefore any ruling they may emit must comply with the Constitution. Quibling over whether that fits the strictest legal definition of 'precedence' is nothing more than a strawman. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------