[tpaine]

We live in a nation under law. Consequently, the short answer to your implied question is "yes, we must obey the law," until we elect someone who will legally change the situation.

Not true according to Justice Marshall in Marbury [1803]:
"-- an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.
It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual.

It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. --"

-- as to the necessity for an amendment to prohibit drugs, according to Congress, the President and the US Judiciary such an amendment is not necessary.
This position is appropriate because Article VI gives the status of "supreme law of the land" to the "laws of the United States."

Not true. "This Constitution," is the supreme law, followed by "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" - note that the laws made must 'pursue' [conform to] the Constitution. -- Again, -- Marshall makes this same point in Marbury..

The laws passed by Congress under the authority of Article I, signed by the President under the authority of the same article, and upheld by constitutionally competent tribunals are, in fact, "laws of the United States."

Only if they are not 'repugnant' to the Constitution itself. "-- an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. --"

You really need to study Marbury from Marshalls 'presumption of liberty' point of view. Remarkable document.

[Lucky Dog]

Only if they [laws] are not 'repugnant' to the Constitution itself. "-- an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. --"

It seems that you wish to ignore who determines which "acts of the legislature" are "repugnant."

First, the President is authorized to veto any legislation that he feels is “repugnant.” However, it may be possible for the President to be mistaken or over ruled by a two thirds majority as specified in the Constitution. However, this is not the last line of protection.

It is in the very case you cited that the right of judicial review was established. The US judiciary reviews the law and makes the determination of exactly what is “repugnant.”

You will kindly note that I established such in my previous argument:

The laws passed by Congress under the authority of Article I, signed by the President under the authority of the same article, and upheld by constitutionally competent tribunals are, in fact, “laws of the United States.”

You really need to study Marbury from Marshalls 'presumption of liberty' point of view. Remarkable document.

It is indeed a remarkable document, but it appears that I am not the one who needs to study it.