re: This precedent frightens me. Anyone else?
I don't live in Nevada, so it doesn't frighten me. It is interesting in terms of law in general. Apparently it seems that an older part of the consitution has more power than a more recent addition. This would not follow a Jeffersonal type philosophic outlook. It does sort of makes sense in conservative ideology. Or maybe, it doesn't have anything to do with some underlying philosophy but is rather specifically stated in their constitution as a way to interpret the Nevada Constitution.