[robertpaulsen]

I didn't ask what laws YOU thought were unconstitutional. I asked which federal laws ARE unconstitutional.

Look, here's the bottom line. If it is law, by definition, it's constitutional. UNTIL such time as it is ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Get it?

(This was in response to a poster who (erroneously) claimed a federal law was constitutional because it was a popular.)

[bvw]

Any court can rule it unconstitutional, any Jury can rule not guilty on the basis of their own in-chambers decided sense of the law being within constitutional bounds, and any official can refuse to act because he (like Andrew Jackson, President of the Unitied States) disagrees with a court's ruling of the constitutuionality.

You are the one who slams religion on the table like some side of ham and demand all eat of it. How? You make the Supreme Court a Pope, infallible, unquestionable. That is the extreme of "positivism".

[publiusF27]

Look, here's the bottom line. If it is law, by definition, it's constitutional. UNTIL such time as it is ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Get it?

And prior to such a Supreme Court ruling, what has to happen? First, some people have to believe the law unconstitutional, then they have to start acting on that premise. You seem to have a problem with people challenging the Constitutionality of existing law, on the theory that if they exist, they must be constitutional.