[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the Constitution protected slavery the Dred Scott ruling was not unconstitutional. Its rightness or morality is not the issue. In order to protect ex-slaves and get rid of slavery the Constitution had to be changed as it was.

Rosa Parks was challenging a local law not a federal one. It was not changed by any federal action but by massive protests led by Dr. King.

EVERYONE can interprete the Constitution if they wish but those interpretations mean NOTHING legally. Most people have no basis for interpreting it anyway as it is far beyond understanding without close study. Constitutionality is not a matter of majority opinion.

Civil disobedience is always an option that Americans have to protest and even change LAWS they are not in accord with but that only goes so far. If I don't like the laws against pot and consider them unconstitution does that mean I should go and light up a joint at Police Headquarters and say to the arresting officer "Officer, I am protesting the unconstitutional drug laws?" Does not sound very smart to me.

[Dan from Michigan]

Most people have no basis for interpreting it anyway as it is far beyond understanding without close study.

I just saw this in the archives. That's just WRONG there.

The federalist papers(upon which most of the constitution was based) was written so that the citizenry can understand. "with Plain, ordinary understanding" I think was the term used.