You claim:
Actually, no. The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. That concept goes back to Tanney and before.
Dream on. 'Marbury' says different, and has never been disputed by anyone since 1803; -- except you.
Please, your arguments are so far off a legal base as to not be worth replying to.
You mean you can't refute Marbury.
I have tried to explain the legal standings of firearms issues to you. You reply that SCOTUS does not have the power to interpret the Constitution.
No, I claimed that you are wrong in saying that: "-- The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. -- "
Scotus can 'interpret' all they want; but they have no power to declare that short shotguns can be prohibited by congress; - just as Congress has no power to make that prohibition.
Where do you think the entire concept of finding an act, law or regulation "unconstitutional" comes from?
We both know the concept comes from our Constitution itself. -- Which cannot be changed except by amendment. -- In effect, you're claiming guns can be prohibited by congressional & judicial fiat.
Please, I'm not going to debate law with you. No disrespect, but you don't have the base of knowledge needed to make legally valid arguments.
What a joke. -- I'm questioning your invalid "base" knowledge about the 2nd, - and you refuse to debate the issue.
Please leave law to (hopefully Conservatives) judges and lawyers. I'll leave the fishing to you.
That's one of Americas ~big~ problems; --- far too much of our law has been left " -- to (hopefully Conservatives) judges and lawyers. --"