If you are actually defining "constitutional" as meaning "approved by the U.S. supreme court", then I suppose you're right. However, I dispute that definition. "Constitutional" is no more a legal term (OR moral opinion) than "dead" is. Yes, a person can be declared legally dead by a court, but that doesn't change their metabolic condition. If a dead person is found to be living by a court, they're still dead.
Constitutionality is a matter of fact. Either a law IS consistent with the U.S. Constitution, or it is not. Court declarations cannot change that reality.
You conspicuously didn't answer Skooz's last question... If SCOTUS declared a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional, would it be?
How can I answer an unanswerable question? The SCOTUS can no more declare a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional than it can declare white to be black.
Yes, a person can be declared legally dead by a court, but that doesn't change their metabolic condition. If a dead person is found to be living by a court, they're still dead.
The supposed conflict here is that you're using the same word for two different terms. If a person is declared legally dead, then they are dead for the purposes of the law. In fact, the courts themselves recognize that legally dead does not necessarily equal metabolically dead, so there's no conflict.
Slavery was once defined as "legal" by the SCOTUS.
Would you have "obeyed the law" if you found a runaway slave in your barn, and turned him in, or fed him and sent him on, becoming a law breaker?
After you answer that, I will follow up with a contemporary question.