Bio not provided
Unless I appeal and get another judge's... what is that called? oh yeah... opinion. (the reason why appeals exist.)
2 years ago on 15 and Counting. Berkeley, CA Rejects NDAA
And what is judicial review if not opinion? Why would there be any sort of dispute ever about the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice if interpretation of law were completely objective? And do you really think that Marines are so brainwashed that they would willingly kill their own people (who they are sworn to defend) because they believe a law to be unconstitutional? Most likely, many Marines would be fighting on the side of the dissenters, like, for example, both my brother and brother in law who are both Marines.
Anyways, this argument has become irrelevant. I used facts and United States law to back my opinion, you have used some facts and mostly talking points to back yours. So, when you call someone you have never met a fool, next time look at your own argument first and make sure that you have the facts straight.
So, what you are saying is that a law is constitutional until said unconstitutional by a Supreme Court Justice? I don't think so. "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256),
which is the legal encyclopedic interpretation of "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176. Annnd... owned.
Actually, Article 6 clause 2 also talks about the supremacy of Constitutional law to all other laws, including federal laws-"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof," pursuance meaning they must come from or in accordance with... it's the whole reason why when laws are deemed by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, they are abandoned, rather than upheld. So when a federal law (NDAA) is in conflict with the Constitution (Article 5 and Article 6), the Constitution reigns supreme. Thus the nullification agenda is both legitimate and should be looked at as dutiful in order to uphold the Constitution's supremacy over all other laws. So if knowing that makes me an "unreconstructed leftist Nullifier," I am happy to be one.