[BEJ]

I’m not sure I follow you. On one hand you are asking if we “are determining if the law itself is Constitution[al]?” and on the other hand, you are saying that “we are forced into a false choice, supporting a statute which is unconstitutional.”

You think it is unconstitutional, but why ask to determine if it is or isn’t constitutional? What would that serve?

[nathanbedford]

It is not so much that we are raising the question of constitutionality, the fact is that the matter will certainly be considered by the courts even if no one brings it up. We should care about the constitutionality of that statute even though it helps us in this terribly important matter of policing the border because this chronic abdication by Congress of its responsibilities is symptomatic of a very grave disease which is subverting our Constitution.

Whatever happened to checks and balances? Whatever happened to divided government and allocation of functions? When these things get consolidated in the executive, either by way of grants of power to unnamed bureaucrats or by even individually to the president himself, we no longer have a constitutional Republic or a representative government. We have a tumor that grows into tyranny.

What do you do with a continuing resolution that spends more than $14 trillion and simply says to a president "go and do what you think prudent but do as you please? "This is a problem when a decent conservative is the president but it is a disaster when a collectivist, left wing, Marxist president is running the show.

Likewise, if the powers usurped by the courts, as Sen. Ben Sasse observed so trenchantly in the Cavanaugh hearings, the result is government by judges, undemocratic government, ultimate tyranny.