Nonsense. You're very entertaining.
Of course I have a problem with this.
And it's Scalia doing what you condemn Kennedy for.
Does the President take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? If he knows a bill is unconstitutional, he is duty bound to not sign it. If the member of Congress knows a bill is unconstitutional, he has a duty to vote against it.
So in other words, something is unconstitutional because the president says it is or a congressman says it is? What if they disagree? Who's right?
Something is not constitutional or otherwise just because the USSC says it is.
Well, yeah. It is. That's how it works.
Perhaps I should finished the thought. It’s a pity you can’t be bothered to pay attention to something the conservative movement has fought for for 20 years at least.
“And it’s Scalia doing what you condemn Kennedy for.”
Did you read his side of the debate I posted?
“So in other words, something is unconstitutional because the president says it is or a congressman says it is? What if they disagree? Who’s right?”
Do you understand what “checks and balances” actually mean?
“Well, yeah. It is. That’s how it works.”
No, that’s not “how it works”. At least, not how it is intended to work. What you describe is tyranny. If the USSC, as an example, did what I suggested - redefine “we the people” in the 2nd Amendment, that would be an unconstitutional action.
Unless you’re one of those “living Constitution” people.
Well, yeah. It is. That's how it works.
And if the USSC is thought wrong, then there is the check and balance of Article V. This was what was employed to overturn the effects of the Dred Scott decision by the Taney court. There are some on these threads who point to the 14th A. as the font of all our current woes, yet they never seem to look at why the Congress and States went to the extraordinary step of passing an amendment.