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.
**********************
The Constitution could not be "explicit on every issue" unless it were very long. It’s a framework, leaving out details of the implementation.
The Constitution is not explicit on every issue, but it is explicit regarding every governmental power. The explicit delegation of governmental power is the framework you name. The Constitution doesn't make any specific law, beyond chosing officers; however, it leaves no question as to who has responsibility for what powers..
The Executive does not have the power to decide war. That is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch.
**********************
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.
A "stretch?!"
The requirement Shall Not is not violated when a waiting period was decreed, a waiting period where you must remain defenseless?
One of the finest things our courts do right is to try to determine what the Founders meant at the time they set up our government, but you claim that a "break with the intent of the Founders" combined with an outright violation of even today's definition of "shall not infringe" is not illegal?
You might want to rethink that argument.