Top products from r/asklaw

Your question here and your broader question is really hard to answer succinctly. There are whole classes taught on this. Here are a few points that may be helpful/resolve your curiosity, though.

First, another way of referring to following precedent is the principle of "stare decisis." That may be helpful in running google searches.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in refusing to overturn Miranda (which, as you may guess, established Miranda rights) indicated that stare decisis is very important, and there must be a "special justification" to depart from precedent (but less so in the context of constitutional decisions): "While stare decisis is not an inexorable command, particularly when we are interpreting the Constitution, even in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.'"

But not all justices, lawyers, and scholars agree. Most notably, Justice Thomas does not care much for stare decisis (in the context of both constitutional and statutory decisions). According to Justice Thomas, a court's job is to enforce the Constitution (or statute) itself, not any court's interpretations of those laws, so precedent carries very little weight: "When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it. This view of stare decisis follows directly from the Constitution’s supremacy over other sources of law—including our own precedents. . . . In sum, my view of stare decisis requires adherence to decisions made by the People—that is, to the original understanding of the relevant legal text—which may not align with decisions made by the Court. Thus, no 'special justification' is needed for a federal court to depart from its own, demonstrably erroneous precedent."

Ultimately, different justices may have their own views on how it should work--but, really, the bottom line is that nothing besides their own restraint prevents the justices from overturning precedent.

As to how exactly these reinterpretations of the constitution occur--as you note, the text of the Constitution itself hasn't actually changed--this is the subject of much scholarship and debate. If you're interested in learning more about it, I would research the idea of "living constitutionalism," and perhaps read this article/get this book (both by David Strauss, one of the most prominent proponents of the idea that our constitution is a "living document").

This might be a helpful resource if you want more information.

Cracking the LSAT (2015 ed.) is good and has 6 real practice tests.

However, you're sort of going about it the wrong way. The practice tests are really valuable learning experiences and you shouldn't waste them when you haven't yet developed good LSAT-taking habits. You need those practice tests once you've taken a course and learned the techniques. If you just want to read through the material and then maybe take one practice test (be strict and time yourself accurately!) just to get a sense of where you're starting from, then that's OK. Maybe you'll score 99th percentile first time and can feel confident you don't need a course. But for the vast majority of people, a structured course will improve your score. It's expensive, but it works.

Source: I taught LSAT for a test prep company for 7 years.

Don't go to law school (Unless) by Paul Campos.

I can give some historical context to this.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, it is important to remember a few very important things:

First, immediately after the Boston Massacre, King George order all guns in Boston to be confiscated, effectively disarming the core location of dissent (at the time) in the Colonies. *He also quartered troops in homes through out the area as a means of solidifying his ability to maintain order, leading directly to the 3rd Amendment.

Secondly, at the time of the official outbreak of war, there were no "States". There was no official military at all other than the troops directly under the command of King George. The "Well Organized Militia" was the term created in perpetuity for the Minute Men. The farmers, business owners, and common citizens who took up arms against the British and officially started the War of Independence.

Third, books such as "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy)", written by Stephen P. Halbrook, it is known that one of the key things that allowed the colonies to gain independence was the immediate ability to form a citizen militia (NOT State) and to bring the fight directly to the British troops stationed in the colonies.

TL;DR A "well regulated militia" was not meant to mean a state sponsored, standing military presence. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, it was with the idea that all citizens should maintain the right to arms, and had a duty to the country, to take up arms against any enemy that threatened the nation they were creating.