VRWC: Yes, of course. It would be constitutional.
Really? Please cite the article, section, and clause of the United States Constitution that would authorize the government to execute all left-handed Americans. And please be specific: my wife is left-handed, and so is one of my best friends. I have a personal interest in the question.
;>)
However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Actually, it is you, my friend, who have no idea what you are talking about. You confuse judicial opinion with 'constitutionality,' and assume that the opinion of nine political appointees can somehow substitute for a written constitution. As Mr. Justice Scalia observed:
"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."
Remarks at The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 1996
Almost two centuries ago, a Jeffersonian republican asked a simple question:
Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or the court supreme over the Constitution?
What say you?
;>)
By the way, Mr. Justice Scalia also noted on the same occasion:
"People who adopt a bill of rights know that societies not only evolve, they also rot."
When people can't tell the difference between written constitutional law and obviously contradictory judicial opinion, the rot appears to be well under way...
;>)
To be specific, Marshall made it up and tried to force it on MAdison and Jefferson. Madison and Jefferson told Marshall where to stick Marburys commission. Marbury didn't get his commission but we got Mount SCOTUS.
"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."