[exodus]

exodus - "A judge, one man, decided that Congress and the President didn't violate the law when the President went to war on his own. That judge has no business deciding that this case didn't merit consideration. Deciding whether a case has merit is the job of a Grand Jury, not of any judge. I am also one man, and I say that our law has been violated."
elfman2 - I don’t think it establishes Grand Juries as arbitrators on constitutionality as you claim. Yes, you are one man, but I can’t take you seriously any longer. Best regards…

**********************

That statement doesn't bode well for your understanding of the Constitution.

I didn't say that a Grand Jury should decide the Constitutionality of law. I said that a Grand Jury should decide what cases have merit; which cases should be heard in a court of law.

A judge's duty is to preside over the Court, not to decide which case is allowed into his courtroom. That decision is the responsibility of a Grand Jury.

[elfman2 on another computer]

The Constitution could not be "explicit on every issue" unless it were very long. It’s a framework, leaving out details of the implementation. But if you believe otherwise, please show me the clause that explicitly requires grand juries to set the judicial agenda for federal civil cases.

A three day waiting period or conceal weapons permit requirements may be bad law, a stretch of the text of the Constitution and a break with of the intent of the Founders, but they are not illegal. (Congressional authorization for the use of force is none of that.)

And like it our not, courts refusing to oppose the more limited restraints on gun ownership are giving them their stamp of approval. I suspect unique challenges are dismissed with references to previous rulings, and redundant ones are rejected without comment.