The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." U.S. Const. amend. VI. "[F]act[s] that increase[] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt," except for prior convictions. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 488–90 & n.15 (2000). Apprendi grounded its rule in history and tradition but relied on precedent—Almendarez-Torres v. United States—for the exception to the rule. See id. at 477–83, 487–90 (citing Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)). Can Almendarez-Torres be reconciled with the Sixth Amendment's history and tradition; and if not, should this Court overrule it?

Whether Almendarez-Torres can be reconciled with the Sixth Amendment's history and tradition, and if not, should the Court overrule it?