[VRWC_minion]

If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?

[NittanyLion]

If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?

First, the president does not believe the law to be constitutional, and indicated such upon signing it. The same concern was voiced by many in Congress, including some who voted for it.

As to the definition of Constitutional, you're absolutely incorrect. The Constitution says what it says; regardless of what the current crop of politicians tell us. Your faith is misplaced, and you'd do better to read it yourself than to blindly trust politicians to tell you what is or isn't constitutional.

[Sir_Ed]

"If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?"

So Dred Scott WAS in fact, Constitutionally speaking, a slave??

Ed

[El Gato]

If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?

Practically speaking yes, but in reality no. The Constitution says what it says, and means what it meant when passed, or when amended as applicable. The Constitution alone is the standard, not what some politicians or political appointees say about it. It's not as if it is some big theoretical exposition, written in impenetrable legalese. It's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous. Congress shall make no law.. and right of the people shall not be infringed, seem awfully clear to me, but apparently not to the Federal courts, nor the Congress, nor the President. All of whom took oaths to support and defend it.