[VRWC_minion]

Then apparently you would consider the Sedition Act to have been 'constitutional

What a dumb question. Yes, of course it was.

The remedy to a law you dislike is to follow the constitution or revolution.

You have provided proof that we can enact bad constitutional laws and our constitution can still survive, correct itself and move on.

[Who is John Galt?]

What a dumb question. Yes, of course [the Sedition Act was constituional]...

And on what basis do you make such a ludicrous assertion? Was the Sedition Act supposedly 'constitutional' because it did not violate your personal "principles?"

;>)

The remedy to a law you dislike is to follow the constitution or revolution.

I believe even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged that an unconstitutional law is not, in fact, a valid law. You seem to have trouble with that concept.

You have provided proof that we can enact bad constitutional laws and our constitution can still survive, correct itself and move on.

What do you mean by "bad constitutional laws?" Offensive to you, personally - or unconstitutional?

;>)

[Congressman Billybob]

The interesting thing about the Alien and Sedition Laws is that they were NEVER found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was a weak institution at the time, and it never ventured to declare them bad.

President Jefferson, on taking office, pardoned and freed the jailed editors of "Republican" newspapers, who had been jailed by the previous Federalist Administration. And those laws were simply allowed to expire.

It was not until nearly a century and a half later that the Supreme Court stated that the A&S laws "were unconstitutional" in the process of deciding the case of New York Times v. Sullivan. Talk about locking the barn door after the horse was stolen.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.