[Who is John Galt?]

How did he violate this oath if all branches of the gov't agree to it ? Isn't that the esence of what is constitutional ? Hasn't this law met all the tests that a law must meet ? I dare say most laws on the books have not met this standard.

Then apparently you would consider the Sedition Act to have been 'constitutional:' President Adams agreed to it, the Federalist majority in Congress agreed to it, and the Federalist appointees on the high court agreed to it, to the point of prosecutiong and jailing 'violators.' The Sedition Act nevertheless violated the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Words have specific meanings, no matter what Bill Clinton or any other politician or political appointee might say. Like Thomas Jefferson, I prefer a written Constitution to the suggestion that 'if the whole government says its OK, it must be OK...'

;>)

[VRWC_minion]

Then apparently you would consider the Sedition Act to have been 'constitutional

What a dumb question. Yes, of course it was.

The remedy to a law you dislike is to follow the constitution or revolution.

You have provided proof that we can enact bad constitutional laws and our constitution can still survive, correct itself and move on.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The SEdition Acts constitutionality was never challenged so the Court never ruled on its constitutionality. Now did it?