I have taken the liberty of snipping the direct questions from my previous posts.If that is all you are taking from this discussion, you are missing the point. I have posed several direct questions to you in my other posts. Will you answer those?
You have offered no justification for the existence of a law except for the existence of a law. To which I argue that that is no justification at all. Exhibit A: slavery. It was once legal to own and traffic in humans. Would you justify the law's existence by arguing that is was the law of the land and leave it at that? Or would you argue that it was immoral/moral, right/wrong, just/unjust on some other grounds?
So you do think that any law is acceptable just because it's the law? I just want to be clear on this. You'd be fine if tomorrow Congress re-institutes slavery and it clears the judicial review process all the way through SCOTUS?
Is it your argument that because a group of 9 individuals says that a law is not in violation of the Constitution that in fact that law is not in violation of the Constitution?
So, once again I ask: if Congress legalizes slavery tomorrow and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land" it is constitutional? If you don't like slavery because, then let's use something a little more gentle. If tomorrow Congress passes a law prohibiting the free practice of religion but for one (which one matters not), and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land," it is constitutional?