[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.

[ThinkDifferent]

First, the president does not believe the law to be constitutional, and indicated such upon signing it.

In other words, he admitted to violating his oath of office.

[VRWC_minion]

The Constitution says what it says; regardless of what the current crop of politicians tell us.

Yes it does, and this bill has met the test set forth by the founding fathers as constitutional. We may not like the result, but its certainly constitutional. The only remaining recourse that our constitution has set forth is amendment.

Absent working within the constitution, the other remaining recourse is to overthrow this constitutional gov't and replace it with a new one.