Abstract
Paulsen examines whether a constitutional amendment can overrule a supreme court decision. He notes that constitutional law must be primarily about business of understanding the meaning of the text of the Constitution, not the content of Supreme Court decisions, for the text always trumps a Supreme Court decision. If the text always trumps a Supreme Court decision with which it conflicts, and does so regardless of which one was written first, then it follows that the doctrine of stare decisis--understood in the strong sense of adhering to a decision one is otherwise fully persuaded is contrary to the text--is entirely illegitimate in the area of constitutional law. Furthermore, an interpreter confronted with a piece of constitutional text that says one thing (with sufficient clarity) and a Supreme Court decision that says something else entirely, must go with the text and not the Supreme Court decision.