[philman_36]

Your contention is that the CSA is constitutional when the constitutionality of it, as a whole, has never been an issue at court. Parts of the CSA have been questioned as being unconstitutional.
I've been trying to show you that the cases you've been citing are not cases on the constitutionality of the Act as a whole. As in this case certain parts of an Act can be unconstitutional without affecting the whole thing.
The cases you continually cite never question the whole CSA, only parts of it.
Can't you ever back up any of your assertions?
I'm trying to. Can you?

[Roscoe]

Your contention is that the CSA is constitutional when the constitutionality of it, as a whole, has never been an issue at court.

So when the courts unanimously agree that the CSA is constitutional in every case where the question is visited, it doesn't count unless you have a case where a criminal is charged with violating every portion of the act?

Pipe logic.