To keep things simple, I'll again refute the factual errors alone.

> That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency.

Wrong again. "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution" != "The Constitution is Constitutional". It isn't true generally, it isn't true practically, and it definitely is not true in this instance. Beyond that, the deliberate misconstruing of its meaning, a meaning for which we have clear precedent and case law, is simply farcical. You are wrong here, I've explained why, and your refusal to accept that isn't a rebuttal.

> In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever.

Yes, it does. Ratifications to the Constitution, and in fact any contract, defer in authority to the more recent amendment wherever terms are equally asserted. The term for it is "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which states, as I asserted, that subsequent laws repeal predecessors that disagree with them. The recency of precedent matters, whether you care to accede that it does or not.

> It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?

I assume the point you're making here is that I'm being inconsistent by asserting that recency reigns supreme, so the PATRIOT act, being newer than the Constitution, should be most current legal interpretation? Because that is easily falsifiable.

16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 states the following:

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law
cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute
runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Since the passage of the 21st amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the sale or transport of intoxicating liquors, because it would be unconstitutional. The most recent stance, in the Constitution, states that the sale and/or transport of liquor is allowed, so if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting that, it would be void. It would not, under Constitution scrutiny, _even be a law at all_, despite it being on the books and in the Congressional register. No citizen would be obligated to uphold it, no police bound to uphold it, no courts, etc.

For this reason, where the PATRIOT act infringes the Constitution, it is null, void. The language comprising the PATRIOT act, specifically as referring to the 'secret lists' that lack oversight have been found unconstitutional on no less than two occasions, and predecessors to the PATRIOT act were struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality. Regardless, Congress passed it again, with minor tweaks to confuse the issue, which was found unconstitutional as well, for which the mitigation was the insertion of the FISA court, to provide oversight, which is currently what's being challenged in various places as well.

If the PATRIOT act wishes to supersede portions of the Constitution, there's a Constitutionally prescribed process for that, and it's ratification. The process of ratification is not the same as simply "passing a new law" through Congress, but I'll leave the procedure as an exercise for you to Google, as it isn't terribly relevant to this discussion.

> You pretend like I've been insulting your character

> you're not in power, and that scares you.

> you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about

> I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me

> you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night

> it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run

Those are character evaluations, that you claim not to be doing. Well, actually, they're character judgements, and one of them is a self-affirmation of your own intractability, which is something you're apparently trying to push onto me.

> I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic

You have no idea how much I know on the subject. As every counter you've offered is literally riddled with falsifiability, I don't know how you can continue to make the assertion that I'm under informed here. Regardless, I don't wish to impugn your character as baselessly as you have mine, so I demur, but saying things like "[when a law was enacted] has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever" and then expect one to take you seriously as you insult their intelligence... it's a bit of a tough sell.

> and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.

I'm not offended that you've challenged my opinions. You really haven't. To suggest that you've challenged my opinions is to suggest that by asserting that 2+2=42, you've challenged math.

As for answering your questions, I confess, I really don't desire to continue this conversation any further, and haven't for some time. This thread is a disgrace to HN, as has been both of our conduct. I've tried, and failed, to conduct the argument civilly. I'll concede that if you're trolling, as I suspect, you've won. I've been trolled into violating my own stop-loss on three separate occasions, but of course, there's an XKCD for that, and I'm as human as the next guy who argues on the internet.