Do constitutional findings trump old precedents?

[A***@gmail.com]

This would more likely apply when a constitution is newish
or newish case-topics are cause by new technology.

If A argues that [old non constitutional derived] precedents:
p1, p2..pn support his argument that "NO";
and B argues that constitutional findings C1,C2..Cn
support his argument that "YES";
then does a finding, by the lower Court, which is based on the
constitutional findings, replace older precedents,
and without the constitutional Court having looked at the
specific matter?

I.e. the lower Courts use the [rea/logic] of the constitutional
Court to over-rule their own previous precedents.

So that a rule-clerk-mentality lawer would be trumped
by one who could reason via the first principles of the
constitution?

==TIA.

[David L. Martel]

Avoid,

Post by A***@gmail.com
p1, p2..pn support his argument that "NO";
and B argues that constitutional findings C1,C2..Cn
support his argument that "YES";
then does a finding, by the lower Court, which is based on the
constitutional findings, replace older precedents,
and without the constitutional Court having looked at the
specific matter?

The constitutional court ruling ( from the Supreme Court) does trump the
old rulings. The precedents are no longer valid arguments. The lower court
will apply the new court ruling to new cases.
In the USA there was a long history of preventing the poor and
unpropertied from voting. The poll tax was one of the instruments used for
this, though it was largely a "Jim Crow" law. The Supreme Court ruled that
such taxes were acceptable in 1934. In 1964 the 24th Amendment abolished the
poll tax in federal elections. In 1966 the Supreme court ruled that State
the poll tax would not be allowed in State elections either. They did this
by hearing a well argued case ( Harper vs. Va. Board of Elections) on the
poll tax and delivering well a reasoned ruling. They did not need to hear
every other case from every other State. Lower federal courts quickly began
ruling on poll tax laws using the Supreme Court decision on 1966. The last
poll tax was gone in April of 1966.
Note that the 1934 ruling was replaced by the 1966 ruling. Newer rulings
can and do replace older ones.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[c***@jprude.net]

Post by A***@gmail.com
p1, p2..pn support his argument that "NO";
and B argues that constitutional findings C1,C2..Cn
support his argument that "YES";
then does a finding, by the lower Court, which is based on the
constitutional findings, replace older precedents,
and without the constitutional Court having looked at the
specific matter?

In judicially hierarchical common law influenced constitution
based jurisdictions - e.g., in a system with a lowest level municipal
court for defined minor quasi-penal and penal offenses or money claims
no greater than what applicable law defines as a 'small' amounts, a
more general jurisdiction trial court, an intermediate appellate
court, and a 'higher' appellate court of last resort in the
jurisdiction - the precedental effect of an opinion deciding a motion
or rationalizing a final judgment will be importantly influenced by
which of these courts, i.e., at what judicial level, the ruling is
rendered.

What a lower court may characterize as a precedent and which
may be a ruling a prospective litigant may claim to be a precedent for
some purpose therefore may nevertheless be overruled or otherwise
substantially undermined by a later ruling by an intermediate
appellate court in the same or in some comparable litigation and, in
turn, the intermediate appellate court's ruling may be overruled or
otherwise very substantially undermined by a ruling of the appellate
court of final resort in the jurisdiction in the same or in some
comparable litigation.

In other words, determining what is and is not an applicable
or perhaps controlling precedent requires more specificity than
posited above.

Still, a well reasoned lower court opinion when made that is
not contradicted or substantially undermined by then existing higher
level judicial precedent can be and sometimes is very persuasive to
the point of being affirmed, if there is an appeal in that lawsuit, or
of being referred to and adopted by other courts which eventually may
include the jurisdiction's highest appellate court in a comparable
case.

Also sometimes a concurrence or dissent of an intermediate
appellate judge may be adopted by the jurisdiction's highest level
appellate court and a dissent or partial concurrence but on different
grounds in a case decided by the jurisdiction's highest level
appellate court may later be adopted by that court as a body with the
effect of undermining or explicitly overruling the majority's ruling
in which the partial concurrence or dissent appeared.

In addition and although you do not make this clear, it may be
that your use of the words including initial capitalization of
'constitutional Court' refers to a federal system more or less
comparable to that in the United States whose federal courts which in
many but not all respects parallel courts of the separate states may
have a role to play in the lawsuit you hypothesize or with influential
effect thereon as a result of explicitly constitution based rulings in
some comparable case.

And as a matter of state constitution based or federal
constitutional based - that is to say, system-structural - law in the
jurisdiction, whether an explicitly constitution based ruling will or
will not replace older precedents is also often be importantly
affected by whether the ruling explicitly or in clear effect is or is
not one of only prospective or also of retroactive effect.

Post by A***@gmail.com
I.e. the lower Courts use the [rea/logic] of the constitutional
Court to over-rule their own previous precedents.

Essentially by definition, a lower court is not authorized to
overrule a precedent established in the jurisdiction by a higher level
appellate court.

Occasionally, however, a lower court will make a ruling it
supports by a reasoned opinion that disagrees with and in some cases
aggressively challenges existing higher level court precedent and by
which it suggests that the higher or, as the case may be, the
jurisdiction's highest level court adopt that ruling even if so doing
will result in the appellate court substantially distinguishing and
limiting or outright overruling existing precedent. Sometimes the
higher or highest level court accepts the challenge and adopts such a
lower court opinion.

Post by A***@gmail.com
So that a rule-clerk-mentality lawer would be trumped
by one who could reason via the first principles of the
constitution?

This sometimes occurs and arguably occurs more frequently that
some judges prefer to acknowledge. However, such a trumping is rarely
if ever achievable by a litigant who communicates that s/he ascribes a
'rule-clerk mentality' to the judge or judges s/he wants to persuade.