Not the duration of time, but the solidity of reason, is to be considered.

Explanation

What must be considered is not the duration of time but the solidity of reason — a right grounded in sound principle endures regardless of how long it has gone unexercised or been suppressed.

Where this applies

• A constitutional right that has gone unenforced for a century is revived by a new challenger, and the court upholds it because the soundness of the principle matters more than how long it was ignored.
• A legal precedent from 1820 is cited in a modern case, and the court follows it because the reasoning is solid even though it has not been invoked in generations.
• A party argues that a right should be considered abandoned because no one has asserted it in fifty years, but the court holds that the strength of the reasoning behind the right is what counts, not the passage of time.