[justshutupandtakeit]

Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.

Most laws never even have a constitutional challenge and are therefore considered constitutionally valid. What is so difficult to understand about that? Playing silly games with sophistic absurdities doesn't help anything. Not that I would ever accuse you of being serious.

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary ‘Queen for Life,’ and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?

queenhillaryscourtjester: Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.

Really? Care to quote the article, section, and clause of the U.S. Constitution that says so? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

;>)

Playing silly games with sophistic absurdities doesn't help anything.

The government law in my example (establishing a monarchy without amending the Constitution) was undeniably unconstitutional, and yet you insist that it would be constitutional. It is your view of 'constitutionality' that is 'absurd'...

Not that I would ever accuse you of being serious.

I can safely say that you are one of the most mindless human beings I've ever encountered. Congratulations for reaching the bottom of the barrel!

;>)