But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest.
gives the impression that all a law must do to regulate a constitutional right is be reasonable.
That is either a flat out lie on his part (most likely scenario) or comes from a very vulgar understanding of constitutional law. It is pretty clear from both his and your posts that neither of you understand that area of law.
Learn the difference between infer and imply. Question beggar.
Yes. And "reasonable" has been defined by the court as a) a compelling governmental interest, b) narrowly tailored, and c) the least restrictive means.
Now, why is it necesary for me to go into that level of detail to address the issue? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may reasonably regulate a constitutional right. Period. I'm correct in saying that and I am not misstating or implying anything.