“I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.”

And once they make it to high judicial office they disregard it altogether.

Because the rule of law (said while crying) no longer addresses the original intent, principle, or subject matter of the Constitution, procedure and what the Supreme Court has said concerning any given action before the court since the 1950's is all that is studied or considered. The semester spent on Constitutional law in law schools is limited to the same.

Selection has and will always be the vehicle of the unknowing....

The root of the problem is this willful disregard of the clear, written word of the Constitution. Professor and student alike both know that this is the case. One group purposely wants to pervert government for their own ideological purposes, another group goes along to get along (and make a buck).

The American justice 'system' has been completely usurped by the private American Bar Association. Lawyers must follow THEIR rules or cannot get a 'license'. The poor individual must depend on these stooges. The Constitution is ignored -- why bother?

Reagan who was not my favorite but he said it all in his quote. We the people are the government. So when folks talk about and criticize the "government" look around and particularly look into the mirror.

Bruce, I am Caesar and King to my de jure Representative Republic, as was Constitutionally guaranteed. To the current, in power de facto government that has conquered my sovereign nation, I am but diacetyl morphine.

What the court says about the Constitution IS the law, like it or not. Personally, I may not like it, but it IS the supreme law of the land

umm....its the lawwwwww

The Supremes swear to protect and defend the Constitution--that is, until it conflicts with their perceived higher duty to protect and defend the erroneous decisions of dead judges. These sacred texts are called precedents. www.poorgrandchildren.com

No wonder liberals feared this man.

Actually, they study both. When last I looked stare decisis was still a valid legal principle.

Interpreting the Constitution is unneccesary at any time. It is written in plain language and anyone who feels the need to twist its meaning is simply looking for a way to corrupt the principles set forth therein.

Alencon, stare decisis, as a valid legal procedure (not a principle) WAS a common law procedure to assist in structuring a current determination of fact and law. Durham Ellis was most correct, the Constitution is the standard in all cases. Historical intent, based on 'natural law' is the law (stare decisis was only to be an aid when evoked) Stare decisis, may or may not be used in any case as an aid - the original Constitution is the standard. Jack, in the de jure representative republic, limited by the Constitution man (including the courts - Supreme court down) can not make law. I have explained this several times. There are three (3) recognized foundations and executions of law; natural law, positivist law or legal positivism, and legal realism. Natural law is the foundation of the de jure Constitutional States united (each State and their united body the United States of America) At natural law it is recognized that man can not create law, only use such tools as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. to define the natural law. At legal positivism, man as a god can create law. The legislative gods create law for the enslaved chattel to obey. A perverted digression of legal positivism would recognize the judicial gods ability to create law. Legal realism is just anything anyone can get away with at the time - for example mob rule or even, it can be similar in effect to legal positivism's digressed god/judge law creation

Quit trying to suppress the document Judge Bork. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create transparency.