Well, sort of. But you’re begging the very question here.
If you offer that argument in a context where it is clear that you are, in fact, disagreeing with previous decisions, and that you believe the Constitution itself to permit segregated schools, then what’s the problem? If, on the other hand, you are making the argument that segregated schools have been found, and are currently held under US law, to be Constitutional, then you would indeed be subject to correction.
That’s why Bricker’s question about authority within particular bailiwicks, asked above and answered quite ably by DMC, is so asinine.
I have never once claimed that there’s anything wrong with a definition that looks specifically to what the current law actually is. In my first post in this thread, i made very clear that i believe this to be an important thing.
My point has simply been that, in addition to this particular use of the term, there is also a more general use of “Constitutional” that does, in fact, refer to a person’s feelings on what ought to be, based on their own reading of the document.
In cases where it is unclear which definition someone is using, i have no problem with asking for clarification. But if it’s clear, from the context of their post, that someone is using Definition B, then it’s disingenuous to respond to them as if they were only using Definition A.
For example, one of the sentences that Bricker referred to as requiring correction in the other thread was this one:
How can you interpret that as anything but a personal belief about the principles enunciated in the Constitution? Hell, he never even used the word “Constitutional.” He simply observed that the law in question was an example of wiping our asses with the Constitution.