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..
Exactly, from what government position was Marshall making these observations? It couldn't have been from the Supreme Court, could it? Gee, I don't suppose that Marshall saw that the court's responsibility was to "strike down" laws, or "acts of the legislature," that the Supreme Court saw as "repugnant" to the Constitution, do you? Naw, that would make it seem that those laws which the Judiciary did not "strike down" were not "repugnant" to the Constitution but were, in fact, "pursuant thereof."
Amusing. You have no point to counter mine, so you post the above meaningless bafflegab.
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.
There is no circular reasoning. Each officer cited, those in Congress, the President, and the judges, all, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Each officer cited is charged with bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constition. Congress is specifically given the exclusive authority to make the law, the President is given the authority to disapprove a law with a veto as well as the authority to enforce those laws held to be valid and the judiciary is charged with the authority to "strike down" any laws "repugnant" to the Constitution. Assuming each officer cited, faithfully carries out his or her oath, then the laws passed and upheld are not "repugnant" to the Constitution, until, and unless, an admendment is made or the courts reverse their previous rulings.
How weird that you can't understand that we are arguing about "assuming". You've just made another circular argument based on "assuming" your first argument was correct..
Minds boggle at your begging assumptions.
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]
Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution and was, obviously, not "repugnant" to it until the thirteenth amendment.
That's debatable. The founders knew slavery was 'peculiar' in a republic, thus they deferred action on it till 1808.
Therefore, all laws concerning slavery not struck down by the courts prior to the thirteenth amendment were constitutionally valid despite the fact that they very obviously deprived certain people of liberty without due process of law.
Good grief; - you're defending Dred Scott.
Furthermore, "separate but equal" was the "non-repugnant" standard the courts used concerning the fourteenth amendment until the middle of the last century. Only in the last 50 years, or so, have laws based upon that premise been judged to be "repugnant" to the Constitution.
And, -- you're defending "separate but equal" Jim Crow 'laws' as non-repugnant..
Keep digging that hole. This is getting incredible.