The "consent of the governed"

[Skidmore]

I posted this on another thread, but really would like a response of some sort to it, even one that tells me I don't know what I'm talking about and that my fears are unfounded. In regard to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this law basically makes trials by any name nonessential for anyone since it denies the doctrine of habeus corpus. Since any act can be interpreted as a threat to the state and any person can be detained if the right person makes that decision, what does this do to the actual practice of administering justice. It seems to me that the justice has been made a hollow and empty husk. Part of this act also makes it illegal to contest the act. Does it not put any dissenters in the position of only having armed revolt as a tool to dismantle it? If Congress has passed a law which is unconstitutional the courts must abide buy it until it is declared as such, right? If you can't contest it, then the courts as a counterbalance to the legislative and executive branches have been nullified.

Lawyers or judges online, help me out here. Am I understanding this correctly?

[Vincardog]

1. Got it in one, armed revolt is what the idiot bush wants

[tocqueville]

2. that's why the constitutionality should be tried BEFORE the law is passed

when passing a law a check should be done by requirement of the parties that disagree (and normally done anyway). Until the court has ruled the law should be suspended.

[Skidmore]

3. self kick