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.
I'm sure their definition of the first amendment didn't include nude dancing as protected speech, so yeah.
The USSC has held (California v Larue) that at least some nude dancing is protected speech, and therefore by your definition that is the constitutional position - but we agree that the Founders would say otherwise.
So now that's the (modern) dictionary, FR usage, AND the Founders all defining constitutionality in a way other than you do.
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.
No, meaning it was to be enforced as any other law.
What I didn't get was the actual FR meaning of the term "unconstitutional".
What puzzled you about this? "FR usage conforms with the dictionary definition: many FReepers agree that Roe v Wade and Obamacare are unconstitutional, U.S. Supreme Court rulings to the contrary notwithstanding."
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.
Semantics. What do you call it when the USSC exceeds its authority and effectively rewrites the Constitution?
You claim a law is unconstitutional, you go to great lengths to try to support your claim, then you ... do nothing.
So long as self-professed "conservatives" are weaseling around the unconstitutionality of Roe v Wade, Obamacare, and "substantial effects" empowerment of the federal Leviathan, I'll have plenty to do.
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.
Straw man - FR and I can and do say that Roe v Wade and Obamacare are not in accord with the Constitution.
This was a narrow ruling.
If the ruling only applied to carriers, no future court could use the ruling for other than carriers.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You may as well claim that if the Constitution didn't have a right to abortion "emanating" from its "penumbras" no court could say it did.