Replies

And on what basis do you make such a ludicrous assertion? Was the Sedition Act supposedly 'constitutional' because it did not violate your personal "principles?"

No, because it was held constitutional by the process it that it self requires.

I believe even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged that an unconstitutional law is not, in fact, a valid law. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

I agree with him. However, the CFR law is now officially constitutional.

What do you mean by "bad constitutional laws?" Offensive to you, personally - or unconstitutional?

Offensive to me personally. There are quite a few constitutional laws that I disagree with and find repugnant, repulsive, oppressive etc. However, they are constitutional.

No, because [the Sedition Act] was held constitutional by the process it that it self requires.

Really? And which "process" was that? Be specific.

...the CFR law is now officially constitutional.

LOL! So, if Congress passed a law requiring that all left-handed Americans be summarily executed, with their total wealth transfered to the President and the Supreme Court Justices, and the President and high court "agreed" with Congress on the matter, you would tell us the law was "constitutional?" How nice. How very, very nice.

In reality, you have just dispensed with the written Constitution, and substituted for it a judicial oligarchy. Congratulations...

Offensive to me personally.

Gosh, I'm sure glad to learn that anything you find "offensive" is now officially "bad constitutional law." By all means, please keep us informed - we wouldn't want to mistake "bad constitutional law" for 'good constitutional law'...

;>)