I'm not sure if we're playing semantics here, but it looks to me like your statment prima faciae assumes that the Court's approval makes a thing constitutional, which is in the "absolute" sense absurd--a Court claiming that a law mandating the execution of everyone past childbearing age was constitutional would not make that law in accord with the constitution. Of course, the Court upholding a law means the law is still binding on us, and thus that we must obey it or break it and present ourselves for trial and punishment to give the matter another hearing.
Look, that is what I mean the hyperbole. IF we ever get a court that says that the this entire argument is moot. At that point there is no constitution there is just every man for himself. Now, I did NOT say that the law was good or bad but that it was passed, signed and put into enforcement within the constitutional framework the founders provided. The last step in that process is the right of the people to redress their grievances in the courts when that law causes the injury.