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

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, 488–9 0 & n.15 (2000). Apprendi grounded its rule in history and tradition but relied on precedent— Almendarez-Torres v. United States —for the exception. 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, shou ld this Court overrule it?