In line? Hardly. I'm simply saying I understand your definition of unconstitutional.
I don't agree with it, since I don't believe the Founders had access to a modern dictionary
Ah, so now you're implying that the Founders' definition of "constitutional" was different? Have any evidence to back that up? ... Keeping in mind that the principle of judicial review was not formalized until Marbury v Madison in 1803.
and "FR usage" -- whatever that is.
The meaning with which a term is used on FR. Did you really not know that?
But hey. Let's all be thankful "true" constitutionality isn't determined by "DU usage", huh?
I'm sure on DU they agree with your definition, because your definition has for generations been favorable to the left. Most FReepers don't agree that the USSC has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution with "emanations" or "penumbras" - or "substantial effects".
What we do about unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings is another question.
As we go further down the rabbit hole ...
What happened to "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it"? If you're going to obey an unconstitutional law, then what's your point?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. If one wants to act contrary to federal drug statutes on the grounds that they are unconstitutional and therefore null and void (and/or to make that point to those who say Scripture commandds that we obey the authorities), more power to them - but I can't fault anyone who prudentially decides that they'd rather avoid the penalties that practically can follow from such action.
"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" (emphasis added)
You keep citing that. The court was simply making a general point.
The only general point it made - which is my point.
Try addressing this instead:
Already addressed several times: "the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates".
"The fact that carriers are instruments of intrastate commerce, as well as of interstate commerce, does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of Congress over the latter, or preclude the Federal power from being exerted to prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confided to Federal care. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers* are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field." [emphasis added]
* Substitute "wheat" or "drugs" or "air traffic" for "carriers" and you have your U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Why would I so substitute when the authors of the ruling did not? This was a narrow ruling. (That a later court broadens an earlier narrow ruling makes the earlier ruling itself no less narrow.)
I'm sure their definition of the first amendment didn't include nude dancing as protected speech, so yeah.
"Keeping in mind that the principle of judicial review was not formalized until Marbury v Madison in 1803."
Correct. Prior to that, there was no final arbiter. Post-1803 the U.S. Supreme Court was the final arbiter -- meaning that if they ruled a law constitutional, it was constitutional.
"The meaning with which a term is used on FR. Did you really not know that?"
That, I got. What I didn't get was the actual FR meaning of the term "unconstitutional".
"Most FReepers don't agree that the USSC has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution with "emanations" or "penumbras" - or "substantial effects".
Neither do I. But that doesn't turn "constitutional" into "unconstitutional" as it does in your world.
"I'm not sure what you're asking here."
I thought I asked what your point was. You claim a law is unconstitutional, you go to great lengths to try to support your claim, then you ... do nothing. Obey the law. Ignore the law. Whatever. Your choice.
Contrast that to my point: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional. Meaning the law IS constitutional and is to be followed to avoid penalties.
As a nation, we operate under the rule of law, not the rule of man. Neither FR or DU or you or me decides constitutionality.
"This was a narrow ruling."
Semantics. If the ruling only applied to carriers, no future court could use the ruling for other than carriers. Yet the Wickard court applied the deision to wheat.