[marktwain]

Unfortunately, laws are assumed to be constitutional, once passed by the legislature. It appears that there may be creative ways to challenge the legislation, as Alan Gura did with the Heller decision. If you can find a way to show that you are harmed by the law, you might be able to file a lawsuit against the person or office that would enforce the law.

[OneWingedShark]

Unfortunately, laws are assumed to be constitutional, once passed by the legislature.

That makes no sense.

Consider a portion of a state constitution which says something to the effect of "the legislature is prohibited from enacting private or special laws granting o an individual, association or corporation any spacial or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatsoever."
And then putting in force all sorts of laws which provide immunities for "law enforcement." How can that be legit?

If you can find a way to show that you are harmed by the law, you might be able to file a lawsuit against the person or office that would enforce the law.

That's the rub; if the Constitution is non-constraining on government, then the harm is that there is NOTHING which I can count on in dealing with government-agents. (That is to say, there is no law [except when it's a convenience, of course], and as there is no law, there is no redress.)