[airborne502]

There are plenty of federal laws still "on the books", that are yet to be ruled on for constitutionality.

And lacking such a ruling, you're saying these laws are unconstitutional and, as such, do not have legal standing and are not to be obeyed?
195 posted by robertpaulsen (I'm debating 3rd graders now.)

If you read past the third grade level, you will find that Marshall makes that very point in Marbury..

[robertpaulsen]

"If you read past the third grade level, you will find that Marshall makes that very point in Marbury."

Here's the very point from Marbury v. Madison:

"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

Now, I could be wrong given my third-grade reading ability, but it sure as $hit looks like the court makes the determination.

Have you got anything that says the law is unconstitutional until the court says it is? Yeah, right.

Here's something to occupy you while we adults carry on with our debate.