No.  He's arguing that active, in-force laws can be unconstitutional.  I'm arguing that no law is unconstitutional unless and until the Judiciary branch of the government says it is.

The word does not have to mean "as ruled by SCOTUS."  Unconstitutional is to murderer as "ruled as unconstitutional" is to "convicted murderer."

Who would get to decide if not SCOTUS?

If a law is active, not challenged, or challenged but not ultimately and conclusively ruled as unconstitutional by the Judiciary system, then it is not unconstitutional, no matter how you feel about it.

The United States of America is not goverened by unconstitutional laws.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 8:18:00 AM (view original):
No.  He's arguing that active, in-force laws can be unconstitutional.  I'm arguing that no law is unconstitutional unless and until the Judiciary branch of the government says it is.

We absolutely disagree on this part.

Congress passes laws. They don't decide whether or not those laws comply with the constitution. That doesn't happen until the law is challenged in court (lower courts can throw out an unconstitutional law too, it doesn't have to go all the way to SCOTUS).

Anyone can see that a law violating the tenth amendment is unconstitutional. Even if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, several federal courts have, and they have all found it unconstitutional.

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional, in the same way our court system determines who is a murderer.

So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 9:15:00 AM (view original):
If a law is active, not challenged, or challenged but not ultimately and conclusively ruled as unconstitutional by the Judiciary system, then it is not unconstitutional, no matter how you feel about it.

The United States of America is not goverened by unconstitutional laws.

Yes, in the same way the United States of America do not let murderers run free.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.  BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment.  tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way.  It's up for debate.

I don't think it's hard to understand at all.   The Feds created a law in 1996 wrt SSM.   The law has stood for 17 years. 

As I told BL on Friday, tell a 35 y/o gay man who has been unable to legally marry his partner, in the eyes of his government, for his entire adult life that the Feds cannot make laws governing marriage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:38:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's hard to understand at all.   The Feds created a law in 1996 wrt SSM.   The law has stood for 17 years. 

As I told BL on Friday, tell a 35 y/o gay man who has been unable to legally marry his partner, in the eyes of his government, for his entire adult life that the Feds cannot make laws governing marriage.

Congress can make laws regarding anything. They could ban religion or confiscate all guns. But those laws, like DOMA would be unconstitutional no matter how long they stand.

The Feds can make laws that people can argue are unconstitutional, sure. 

Sez you.   I'll let the last 17 years tell me the story. 

SCOTUS handed down a ruling in 1896 that was overturned in 1954.  There were many people who believed that SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling in 1896, that what they ruled was constitutional was in fact, unconstitutional.  SCOTUS agreed with those people in 1954.

The constitutionality of laws isn't always black and white.  It's up for debate.

We may find out in just a few minutes whether or not DOMA is constitutional. I'm betting it's not.