[riverrunner]

So you think we should live with bad laws until the courts decide other wise. If a law is unconstitutional it should be killed at the onset. We should not have to wait some times for years living under unconsititutional laws passed by the house and senate. We have some very unconsititional laws that we have been living with for a long time. Because the courts refuse to hear them. Don't think the courts well kill a law because it is unconsititional. RIGHT

[DugwayDuke]

No one will have to "live" under this law while it is being challenged in court. The bill does not become effective until after this election cycle.

But, more fundamentally, in order for there to be order, there must be one authority for judging the constitutionality of a law. The problem with leaving this issue to individual interpretation is that individuals differ in their opinions. Without a single authority for determining this issue, there is only chaos. No system of law can survive if everyone subject to law can determine whether each law is constitutional. In such a system, there could be no such thing as law since there would be as many laws as there are individuals. One cannot be conservative and believe otherwise.

I agree with most in that this law is bad law and should be killed. I happen to think the only way to kill it is USSC. Anything else just means it just keeps coming back, time after time. Do you want this battle to continue for years? Or do you want it overwith? A veto only prolongs the fight. If one truely believes this bill is unconstitutional, then there is nothing to fear.