In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), this Court held:
"stare decisis has never been treated as "an inexorable command. " And the
doctrine is "at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution " because a
mistaken judicial interpretation of that supreme law is often "practically
impossible " to correct through other means. "

1. Do courts therefore err when they assert stare decisis as binding? Is there an
explicit constitutional basis for the doctrine of binding stare decisis,
especially when used to undermine constitutional guarantees such as rights to
liberty and property and the presumption of innocence, as when it is invoked to
deny a defendant a jury trial contrary to State and Federal Constitutions?

2. Does classifying a charge as an 'infraction' or other designation, or perceived
ambiguity in the treatment of a case as criminal or civil (or any other heading such
as an "administrative " proceeding) allow for bypassing jurisdiction, procedural
safeguards, and constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury trial?

3. Under what constitutional authority can a state mandate the confiscation of
property or compel the purchase of securities or other commodities, in a manner
that contravenes enumerated taxation and regulatory powers and the due process
clauses of both State and Federal Constitutions, and furthermore contradicts the
principles underlying a State Constitution 's provision safeguarding free market
operations?

Whether stare decisis can be invoked to undermine constitutional guarantees when interpreting the Constitution