> you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all.

> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

The second quoted statement there is an interpretation of a part of the Constitution. "Any usage" of a part of the Constitution is not necessarily Constitutional. The Commerce Clause has a meaning, but we should be able to agree that "any usage" of the text is not necessarily valid. I could use the text to suggest that the federal government, for example, has authority over interstate that are not in the United States. I could apply the law to apply to any solid state hard drives that happen to be on an interstate by contorting the statement "among the several states."

So, am I wrong in suggesting that your interpretation is an interpretation? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution?

That you later change the statement to the broader "The Constitution is Constitutional" is a false dichotomy. The narrower does not agree with the broad, despite your suggestion that they are equal. They are not.

> I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law"

No, I'm not. I am admittedly watering it down for your benefit though.

> A judicial precedence is, as far as these \sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law.

That is correct, but far from complete.

> This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise.

That is incorrect, and I've already explained how, but I'll expound. The federal register lists every law on the books, whether valid or invalid, constitutional or unconstitutional. The register, as a result, has many contradictory laws, and statutory interpretation must be used to divine which has bearing over which ones do not. A first principal of statutory interpretation is leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, which uses recency as the proverbial 'tie-breaker' against otherwise co-equal provisions. The newer law invalidates the older one. I'll concede that it does not in fact rewrite it, in the sense that the original law is not physically altered, but for all practical purposes, it loses any gravity in lieu of the newer, and is considered all but re-written, invalidated, nulled, or whatever way you'd like to put it that doesn't require further arguing of semantics.

> This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments.

The applicability of the Commerce Clause toward the constraint of the Bill of Rights has everything to do with the ratification of Constitutional amendments. On what grounds do you suggest that they do not?

> Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling.

This is correct.

> THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.

This is incorrect. If a law is passed on Tuesday that allows for the theft of sandwiches, and a law is passed on Wednesday that prohibits the theft of sandwiches, the theft of sandwiches is illegal. I don't know why this concept is so baffling to you, but this is established law. The latter may not specifically repeal the former, though it does supersede it. The result is that there would be two laws in the register, one allowing for the theft of sandwiches, and the other disallowing the theft of sandwiches. Only one of those laws has any teeth. I'll leave is as an exercise to the reader over which one it is.

> Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written.

While not attempting to invoke deference, I have authored or co-authored parts of laws and amendments that have been enacted within the state of Maryland, and have been involved (though as more of a support role than active) in research and construction of legal arguments successfully employed in the MD circuit courts, the MD Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but this really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. That I've had to explain the concept of implied repeal no less than three times tells me that you're not arguing from a solid foundation. Saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't.

> Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic.

Well, by comparison, I can speak with a high (very high) degree of certainty that you are wrong.

You say things like 'time has no bearing on precedent', which is patently, provably false. You say things like 'there aren't "revisions" of laws' as easily as saying that trees don't have leaves. You go on to say that because those statements are true, that they have no bearing on the ratification of the Constitution, which is, again, provably false; That exact argument has been made before the Supreme Court, and won. In short, if I'm wrong, then so is every judge and justice.

You assert that Congress can pass a law that supersedes the Constitution, and while, as a practical matter, I concede that in practice they often do, and then you misconstrue the timeliness of judicial preference to assert that any law that Congress passes supersedes the Constitution because it's more recent.

That really, really isn't how it works, and despite how well-written and confidently stated your arguments are, they are built upon a foundation of exactly nothing. It's like we're writing an application here but refusing to accept that 'scope' exists, or that it has any bearing on whether a variable is available within a given method.

You go on to assert that I'm intractable, despite a demonstrable history of acknowledging when I'm wrong. You go on to assert that you're not intractable, despite having previously admitted to being so. This argument is entirely fruitless, and I honestly can't imagine how continuing it isn't just feeding the trolls, so if your intent is to keep dragging me back in, which I admit that I'm vulnerable to, you'll have to try quite a bit harder next time.