Most of what congress passes is not constitutionl.”
I don't disagree with that sentiment in general, however there are several problems to consider when applied to this situation in particular.
The first is that it should be obvious that this was a classic “act of terrorism” based solely on the targets. We don't even have to get into the motives, religion or any other factor involved. The target wasn't a government building or soldiers in a combat zone, it was a cowardly act directed toward American citizens in general designed to maim, kill and in general instill fear in all of us.
From that standpoint alone, I insist that the punishment be swift, painful and appropriate.
I agree the act was awful but no where in the constitution does it say ‘terrorism’ or prescribe that offense. Congress has (though illegally). MA probably has too. I’d argue the MA law is the one he should be brought to justice under.