Not at all. I think you have no real rebuttal to my comments above, so you are raising this 'point' in order to save face.
You need a course in Basic English and/or logic.
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."
Same quote:
"-- 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..
If the Congress has passed the law, they, obviously, did not find it "repugnant" to the Constitution. If the President signed the law, he, obviously, did not find it "repugnant" to the Constitution. If the competent tribunals upheld the law, they, obviously, did not find it "repugnant" to the Constitution.
You are illogically "Begging the question":
The 'truth' of the conclusion is assumed in your circular premise that if the Congress, President, & Courts find a law valid, it cannot be repugnant to the Constitution.
Clearly, laws that deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law can be enacted, enforced, and upheld. [necessitating the 14th]
-- Such laws are repugnant to the Constitution, thus void. [see Marbury]