You do this thing, when you write, where you take what you're trying to argue, and presuppose it as correct. You've done this in a number of places.

First, you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all. Had I actually written something like that, you'd be correct, but I didn't. The disagreement we're having revolves around that fact, but instead of actually arguing the point, you simply assumed it to be what you said, and then continued to draw conclusions. Every conclusion you've made on that topic after you presupposed what I said as something I didn't actually say is therefore incorrect. If you want to argue, then the point you'd be arguing is whether or not I said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution". The rest of your argument hinges on it, and I don't believe I said that at all.

Then, you begin talking about "judicial precedence". I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law". A judicial precedence is, as far as these [0][1][2][3][4] sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law. This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise. This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments. A ruling may interpret a particular part of a law or the Constitution in a certain way, but it doesn't literally or figuratively "rewrite" said law. Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling. THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.

Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written. There aren't "revisions" of laws, where you have to know which law was passed when. There is one set of laws. This set of laws gets changed over time - rewritten, modified, redacted, etc. There is, at any given time, only one body of text that constitutes federal law[5], and one body of text that constitutes state law[6]. Again, when a law is appended to these bodies of text, this has nothing to do with how or when rulings on these laws are passed down. When a law is passed, and when it's first ruled on (setting precedence, as in judicial precedence), are completely irrelevant.

Then you start getting confused, and go on a bit of a rant. You're in the middle of talking about judicial precedence, and you seem to kind of mold that in with Jurisprudence, which deals with the constitutionality of laws. It seems to me you think they're related? They're not, just to be clear. You also don't seem clear on what happens to a law when it's found unconstitutional. You say, "It would not even be a law at all" which isn't true. It'd be a law. Just an unconstitutional one, at least until a higher court rules, or another court of equal level rules differently.

And then we get to the part of the comment where you act like my observations are without cause or justification.

Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic. It's that very certainty that undermines your credibility, however. People who are actually educated on the topic of constitutional law don't have your confidence. It's not a very consensus-oriented topic, even among experts. I think you know where I'm going with this, but in case you don't, here are some links: [7][8][9]. Suffice it to say, you share all the hallmarks of a fanatic. And I know you think this is a personal attack, and not relevant, but I just urge you to do more than you usually do for this specific belief.

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
[1] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-meant-by-judicial-precedence
[2] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-judicial-precedent
[3] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+precedent
[4] - http://nuweb2.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_10.htm
[5] - http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
[6] - http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
[7] - http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html
[8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[9] - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

Edit: I can't reply any further (no 'reply' message appears), but it genuinely frightens me that you've written laws. I'm going to live on the assumption that you've just lied about that.