Now, that's quite unfair. Why did you go from arguing the point to characterizing me? It is false to claim I reject judicial review, I have never done so, and courts reviewing laws is one of the legitimate powers granted to them. Are you unable to distinguish between courts holding laws to be in conflict or unconstitutional, and courts deciding that the constitution is subservient to their opinion? In one they are taking the powers granted to them and exercising them, in the other, they are deciding that they are the supreme power, a clear usurpation. Even if you have trouble making this distinction yourself, or disagree with my perspective, it must be obvious that I do, and thus the characterization is quite unfair.
It's also unfair to say I'm not "arguing from US jurisprudence at all", because essentially you're saying "I'm not arguing without already conceding that the constitution is meaningless.", only you're putting it in terms that imply I'm being unreasonable.
Actually, I'll take that as concession of my points in full.
The constitution says what it says. IF you don't like it, or the government doesn't like it, it has provisions for how to amend it.
Ignoring it is something they cannot do, because when they do that, they lose authorization under it.
This is quite logical, and I think irrefutable.
Anyway, I understand your general line of attack, I don't find it compelling and feel that I've already refuted it... and comments on HN often go off into the weeds so, I'm done.
Just to be clear: you reject the concept of judicial review, and believe Marbury v Madison is a "usurpation".
Marbury v Madison didn't come out of left field. Hamilton presaged it in the Federalist Papers, explaining not only that the judiciary under our constitution is responsible for "interpreting" the law (his words), but that the gravity of that responsibility is one of the reasons they have permanent tenure, to keep them independent of the legislature.
Hamilton envisioned a government in which conflicts between the "people" (e.g. the Constitution) and the courts would be resolved simply by amending the Constitution. As could just as easily be done to, for instance, end all regulation and (one supposes) the 2-centuries-old concept of judicial review.
I understand what you're saying and agree that there's insufficient compatibility between our worldviews to productively argue about the Constitutionality of laws arising from conflicts between the explicitly enumerated concerns in the Constitution (here: the enumerated power of Congress to secure copyright, and the First Amendment).
It's also unfair to say I'm not "arguing from US jurisprudence at all", because essentially you're saying "I'm not arguing without already conceding that the constitution is meaningless.", only you're putting it in terms that imply I'm being unreasonable.
Actually, I'll take that as concession of my points in full.
The constitution says what it says. IF you don't like it, or the government doesn't like it, it has provisions for how to amend it.
Ignoring it is something they cannot do, because when they do that, they lose authorization under it.
This is quite logical, and I think irrefutable.
Anyway, I understand your general line of attack, I don't find it compelling and feel that I've already refuted it... and comments on HN often go off into the weeds so, I'm done.
Good day!