No, I think you're an idiot. I didn't say they can't pass the law, but that they can't legally make laws regarding many things. It doesn't mean they won't try, but it's still unconstitutional and the laws will correspondingly eventually be found to be unconstitutional. It may take a while. For example, the case that made laws against homosexual activity unlawful, 2003's Lawrence vs. Texas, was specifically raised against a 30-year-old law, and some of the other states' laws that were effectively nullified by the decision were much older than that.
Again, as with your Civil War secession analogy, I don't really see where you're trying to go with this. How does the fact that Congress passed an unconstitutional piece of legislation and that it managed to stay in force for a while, albeit being consistently successfully challenged in lower courts, prove that the law was justifiable in the first place? I don't see the point you're trying to make here. The common thread between these two ridiculous arguments seems to be that you think the Federal government can do whatever it wants. This is patently untrue, per the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is going to back that position up very soon. I fail to see how anything you say has any bearing on the legitimacy of the law. Just saying it exists doesn't prove anything.