Legal rules resting only on past authority deserve condemnation when their rationale has lapsed

Evidence

It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1067

Categorization

• XREF: Holmes’s classic line connects to legal realism and dynamic constitutional interpretation debates covered in standard first-year constitutional law materials. — connects to: Legal precepts evolve slowly as working hypotheses continually retested in courts — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 644; Appeal to tradition may be legitimate within constitutional law — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1068; Formalism disguises the need for judicial choice by freezing rule meaning — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 370 (+12 more)
• SEED: Angle: how Holmes’s critique of precedent-based reasoning survives today in living-constitution vs originalist debates.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1067